Pinecone Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 Since it was experimental, it was probably legal. Years ago there was a big gypsy moth spraying operation. One group staged out of my home field. They had two Ayrs Turbo Thrush aircraft. They were Restricted airworthiness. The fuel placards said USE ONLY - Jet-A, Jet-A1, Jet-B, Jet-B1, JP-4, JP-5, Diesel Fuel - Kerosine, Home Heating Oil, AVGAS 80/97, AVGAS 91/96, AVGAS 100LL, AVGAS 100/130, AVGAS 115/145, MOGAS I loved the ONLY The text wrapped around the filler several times. I was surprised that they did not list Moonshine. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 2 minutes ago, Pinecone said: Since it was experimental, it was probably legal. Years ago there was a big gypsy moth spraying operation. One group staged out of my home field. They had two Ayrs Turbo Thrush aircraft. They were Restricted airworthiness. The fuel placards said USE ONLY - Jet-A, Jet-A1, Jet-B, Jet-B1, JP-4, JP-5, Diesel Fuel - Kerosine, Home Heating Oil, AVGAS 80/97, AVGAS 91/96, AVGAS 100LL, AVGAS 100/130, AVGAS 115/145, MOGAS I loved the ONLY The text wrapped around the filler several times. I was surprised that they did not list Moonshine. legally airworthy? Sure. It's the tax evasion that is the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fly Boomer Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 9 hours ago, Pinecone said: Since it was experimental, it was probably legal. Years ago there was a big gypsy moth spraying operation. One group staged out of my home field. They had two Ayrs Turbo Thrush aircraft. They were Restricted airworthiness. The fuel placards said USE ONLY - Jet-A, Jet-A1, Jet-B, Jet-B1, JP-4, JP-5, Diesel Fuel - Kerosine, Home Heating Oil, AVGAS 80/97, AVGAS 91/96, AVGAS 100LL, AVGAS 100/130, AVGAS 115/145, MOGAS I loved the ONLY The text wrapped around the filler several times. I was surprised that they did not list Moonshine. I would have added perfume, Jim Beam, and a couple of others just to see if anyone noticed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigdaddie Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 On 3/17/2024 at 7:56 PM, NotarPilot said: I lean while climbing too. I lean to the point where EGTs just start to move. I don't notice much difference in CHTs but the fuel burn comes down a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hais Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 On 3/14/2024 at 9:41 PM, McMooney said: No, it's due exceptionally bad service at one of their dealerships. we took the car back to that dealership 4 or 5 times because the dealership didn't put the bolts back in the car. I mean all the bolts under the car, trim and bumper. it fell apart drivign down the highway, to which the dealership tried to say WE must've ran into something. I took the car to the corner mechanic who took pictures of all the bolts missing and the dealership still didnt' put the car back together hell even called stellantis, who said they'd do something and guess what nothing. so i ended up paying the roadside mechanic thousands to fix my car and say the hell with chrysler Missing bolts? Sounds to me you are confusing things - are you sure it wasn't Boieng you took it to? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 (edited) Leaning in the climb… (towards the center of the cabin) The O1 has a calibrated EGT gauge to make it easy… a blue box on the EGT gauge keeps things between 2-300°F ROP… At Ford, Quality was Job #1… At Boeing, Quality was a vendor challenge… I would gladly consider a diesel option… where is that turbine Mooney project lately? Best regards, -a- Edited March 22 by carusoam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fly Boomer Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 9 minutes ago, carusoam said: I would gladly consider a diesel option… where is that turbine Mooney project lately? Was the turbine a factory project. Many of the changes Mooney made were driven by outside sources. Sounds like a project for Rocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 Non pressurized turbines answer a question that no one is asking. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McMooney Posted March 23 Report Share Posted March 23 On 3/21/2024 at 6:10 PM, Fly Boomer said: I would have added perfume, Jim Beam, and a couple of others just to see if anyone noticed. wild turkey or old grandad burn better 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted March 23 Report Share Posted March 23 On 3/22/2024 at 2:06 AM, Fly Boomer said: Was the turbine a factory project. Many of the changes Mooney made were driven by outside sources. Sounds like a project for Rocket. In 2008, Mooney signed a deal with RR for a project that never left the ground before the economic disaster put everything in disarray… the engine they were going to use was an existing small helicopter design based on low(ish) altitude efficiency…. Rocket engineering had awesome skills for putting interesting engines in Mooneys and Pipers… Mooney Missile, IO550A, 300hp Standing Ovation, and O3, IO550G or N, 310hp P46T best regards, -a- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted March 23 Report Share Posted March 23 19 hours ago, Shadrach said: Non pressurized turbines answer a question that no one is asking. no one informed is asking…. for the less informed… That question starts to get formulated… 1) If I had the dough… 2) The reliability of turbines is… 2a) diesel is… more available, lower cost, lead free, higher specific energy…. Then reality strikes… 3) The engine efficiency is low… flying even faster doesn’t make the efficiency get better. 4) The engine efficiency gets worse below the FLs… Then the question usually gets dropped… 5) Usual mission isn’t served very well climbing all the way to the FLs…. 6) T/O distance isn’t spectacular… 7) Masks on a family of four with a small dog… 8) Hot section inspection/ OH… huge investment spread over many thousands of hours… 9) No way to upgrade a non-pressurized cabin to pressurized… 10) the TN’d IO550 looks like an easy step up compared to the turbine… It does look and sound cool though… Best regards, -a- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Munney Posted March 24 Report Share Posted March 24 I have used the time tested method to improve speed. Wax, stickers and lying on the internet. Much cheaper than new engines and real speed mods and you can add probably 20 knots. Ha ha 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A64Pilot Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 On 3/21/2024 at 10:07 AM, Shadrach said: legally airworthy? Sure. It's the tax evasion that is the problem. It’s not a problem, as the quote on the Thrush, it’s still that way on the Pratt models, but no Avgas. I don’t think Avgas was ever allowed except maybe as an emergency fuel, lead deposits is the problem. All Garrets on their fuel controls can be adjusted to run Diesel etc., the settings are based on the specific gravity of the fuel, but most turbines don’t require anything. Even though it’s still allowed no Ag pilot I know of burns Diesel anymore, bought in volume Jet is cheaper, being Ag they get some kind of tax exemption, but Diesel burns dirty and your fuel injectors require more frequent cleaning, which is a bigger job than it sounds like and has bad consequences if you don't. Actually #1 and #2 Diesel don’t exist anymore it’s all ULSD, so technically you can’t burn ULSD in a Thrush. ‘But tax wise think of all of the large amount of Autogas STC’s, none of them of course pay the aviation tax, but it’s legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A64Pilot Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 On 3/23/2024 at 2:48 AM, carusoam said: In 2008, Mooney signed a deal with RR for a project that never left the ground before the economic disaster put everything in disarray… the engine they were going to use was an existing small helicopter design based on low(ish) altitude efficiency…. Rocket engineering had awesome skills for putting interesting engines in Mooneys and Pipers… Mooney Missile, IO550A, 300hp Standing Ovation, and O3, IO550G or N, 310hp P46T best regards, -a- That would be the old engine that was designed in the late 50’s by Detroit Diesel for an Army requirement for a light observation airplane or a helicopter. Military designation of T63-A700 318 SHP or 720 420 SHP, Civilian designation of C-18 and C-20 I think. I was an OH-58 Crew Chief for a few year and the 58 used this motor as did the OH-6 and many Civilian helicopters, the BO-105 had two of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Model_250 Installed on many Bonanza’s and C-210’s etc and the Turbine Maule. Its not a bad engine really but I’m sure a modern design would be much better, if anyone had Government money to design and build one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted April 3 Report Share Posted April 3 On 3/29/2024 at 7:27 PM, A64Pilot said: That would be the old engine that was designed in the late 50’s by Detroit Diesel for an Army requirement for a light observation airplane or a helicopter. Military designation of T63-A700 318 SHP or 720 420 SHP, Civilian designation of C-18 and C-20 I think. I was an OH-58 Crew Chief for a few year and the 58 used this motor as did the OH-6 and many Civilian helicopters, the BO-105 had two of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Model_250 Installed on many Bonanza’s and C-210’s etc and the Turbine Maule. Its not a bad engine really but I’m sure a modern design would be much better, if anyone had Government money to design and build one. There was a brief moment in 2008 where press releases were being generated before getting tossed out… Mooney announced their partnership with RR…. RR500 TP (turbo prop) was the engine being considered… https://www.avweb.com/air-shows-events/mooney-rolls-royce-look-at-turbine-single/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_RR500 mid year, they still didn’t have a feel for how tough 2008 was really going to be… 500shp short term 380shp continuous how was the Maule T/O performance with the TP? longer or shorter than piston variety? If I got a turbine engine on my Mooney… I still want to be off the ground at the 1k’ mark… Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Munney Posted April 5 Report Share Posted April 5 New Fusion based engine announced by “some start-up in California “. Send in your deposit money now to get your place in line. We have no HP or fuel specifics but we promise fewer moving parts, at least 400 HP, thousands of hours between overhauls and all this for less money. Awaiting certification from the FAA and the Department of Energy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinecone Posted April 5 Report Share Posted April 5 1 hour ago, William Munney said: New Fusion based engine announced by “some start-up in California “. Send in your deposit money now to get your place in line. We have no HP or fuel specifics but we promise fewer moving parts, at least 400 HP, thousands of hours between overhauls and all this for less money. Awaiting certification from the FAA and the Department of Energy. You are 4 days late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.