It Never Ceases to Amaze Me

[mmcdaniel33]

Having been in the market to replace my Warrior II with something faster (to shorten the visits to our first grandson, coincidentally being born as I type this) I have found lots of overpriced airplanes out there.  People seem to think the COVID/Pilot Shortage driven market is endless.  I think the insanity is past, and future market pressures will be the continued decline of flyable vintage airplanes.  But I've been searching for at least six months, and some of the airplanes I looked at 6 months ago are still on the market and still at the same price, and NOT flying!!!

Should close on my 1977 M20J in the next day or so.  Owner was involved with the airplane, flying the airplane and realistic about selling it.  Having bought a  Cirrus he was a little more motivated not to continue being a 2 airplane owner!  So we agreed on what I do feel was a right price.  

Lots of boats rotting away in marinas, back yards, storage places.  Lots of motor homes too.  I don't understand it.  If Ihave it, use it!

[Pinecone]

It happens with cars and boats.

It gets put away for some reason.  And the owner full intends to spend the minimal time to fix the issue and get back using it.  But life gets in the way and time passes and the amount of effort will not fit the available resources (time and money).   And then it gets to the point that it needs a lot of work to be sellable.  But the intent is still there to get it back running.

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, mmcdaniel33 said:

Should close on my 1977 M20J in the next day or so.  Owner was involved with the airplane, flying the airplane and realistic about selling it.  Having bought a  Cirrus he was a little more motivated not to continue being a 2 airplane owner!  So we agreed on what I do feel was a right price.  

Congrats!   The J is the best of the Mooneys and the 77 is the best of the Js. 

 

[Pinecone]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

Congrats!   The J is the best of the Mooneys and the 77 is the best of the Js. 

 

 

Hmm, a NUMBER of people could and would argue that. :D

 

[EricJ]

45 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Hmm, a NUMBER of people could and would argue that. :D

And they'd be wrong! 

[Schllc]

On 4/29/2024 at 6:46 PM, Shadrach said:

I am similar but I need to be better about choosing my battles. just when I think I'm ahead, fate says "nope"... 

"In shape" is relative.  I'm not in the shape I'd like to be in but still did 33mls and 6500' of vert with a 45lb pack in 3 days and a wake up.  It was close though. One of our guys had knee issues and I thought we were going to miss the Sunday boat back to Chelan.

Wow, 45# is brutal for a mountain hike.    
I’ve done 100miles (rolling hills, not mountains) in 3 days with closer to 60# more times than I care to remember.    
Of course this was not for fun,  or by choice….
These days, I may start a little over, but  I stay under 30# for the end. If I can’t whittle it down to that I aint going!  
these old knees can only take so much. 

[Schllc]

6 hours ago, EricJ said:

And they'd be wrong! 

The best Mooney in the world is the one you are flying!

[Shadrach]

10 minutes ago, Schllc said:

Wow, 45# is brutal for a mountain hike.    
I’ve done 100miles (rolling hills, not mountains) in 3 days with closer to 60# more times than I care to remember.    
Of course this was not for fun,  or by choice….
These days, I may start a little over, but  I stay under 30# for the end. If I can’t whittle it down to that I aint going!  
these old knees can only take so much. 

The up shot is that your gear was free!

I’m working towards lightening the load.  My gear is not super light, but I could get my base weight down to <25. My knees don’t bother me in spite of the left one having some preowned parts.  The descents are harder on my body a than climbing.

[Pinecone]

7 hours ago, EricJ said:

And they'd be wrong! 

Hmmmm, NO.   

252/Encore is the best Mooney.

 

[Schllc]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

The up shot is that your gear was free!

I’m working towards lightening the load.  My gear is not super light, but I could get my base weight down to <25. My knees don’t bother me in spite of the left one having some preowned parts.  The descents are harder on my body a than climbing.

I bought a two man backpacking tent with aluminum poles. The whole thing with the fly was less than two pounds. And it was only $99 from Amazon!  
remember when you had to drive to some outfitter somewhere just to look at what you couldn’t afford?  Crazy….

a nice osprey pack, bladder, bag tent, pad and tarp, three days food and some sundries, 28# full of water. Flying somewhere to hike is the best of both worlds. 

[Hank]

15 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Hmmmm, NO.   

252/Encore is the best Mooney.

 

I've long thought that the Encore is the ultimate Mooney, but you gotta be careful where you go with it--my C will easily go in and out of places that an Encore won't. Plus the Encore isn't much of a grass fielder.

It's all in the compromise--which functions are important to you, and how many AMUs are available? The final answer will be different for most of us.

[Pinecone]

I like the Encore converted 252 as it is a bit lower empty weight, so better UL.

If you need to operate off grass, you can remove the one gear door on each side.

Not sure about the TO performance.  But on a hot day at a higher field, the turbo performance is very nice.

And I love cruising at 175 KTAS on 10.1 GPH.

 

[Hank]

I always thought the Encore's grass problem was nose wheel weight, not lower gear doors. But one was never in my budget, so I could be mistaken. 

My annual beach trip is to a 3500' grass strip, obstructed and displaced when landing towards the nearby water (14?). Not sure I'd take a loaded Encorenin and out, even though there's no fuel so no gross departures.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

I like the Encore converted 252 as it is a bit lower empty weight, so better UL.

If you need to operate off grass, you can remove the one gear door on each side.

Not sure about the TO performance.  But on a hot day at a higher field, the turbo performance is very nice.

And I love cruising at 175 KTAS on 10.1 GPH.

 

The Encore is the ultimate turbo Mooney in my opinion. However, it is not the best at everything. My poh only shows take off data up to 7500’.  At that altitude the book shows a ground roll is 1760’ at 2740lbs (mgw) with an OAT of 72°.  At the same weight and conditions The book for the Encore says it will need nearly 2300’ to get off the ground.

The thing is, at the weights I would be conducting high altitude ops, I’d be off the ground in closer to 1200’

The turbo has its advantages, but I don’t think runway performance is one of them…maybe at Leadville on a hot day…

I wonder if folks wear O2 in the pattern during the summer months.

[Schllc]

An instructor for my Aerostar brought up a good point to me about efficiency and cost on the lycoming up-540.  
But it’s valid in several other areas.  
I was very accustomed and comfortable with LOP, and I really wanted to try it out but the lycoming do not tolerate it as well in general, and on the twin, the speed loss is huge. 
While fuel is a big expense, I think it’s fair to say  so is tbo.  
I’ll use my  numbers to illustrate but feel free to plug in yours to see which makes sense. 
 

Aerostar ROP
220 knots at 32gph, tbo at 2000hrs. That’s 440k miles and $320k in fuel at $5gal.  
OH @$100k
$0.95 per mile

Aerostar LOP  
175 knots at 26gp, tbo at 2000hrs.  That’s 350k miles and $260k in fuel at $5gal.  
OH @$100k
$1.02 per mile  

 

acclaim ROP    
220 knots ROP at 21gph tbo 2200    
OH @$100k and two tops $25k
$0.78 per mile

acclaim LOP    
200 knots at 15 gph tbo 2200    
OH @$100k
$0.60 per mile

Encore LOP 
175 knots at 10gph, tbo 1800? 
oh @$100k    
$0.60 per mile. 
 

it’s an interesting way to look at it is all. 

[Shadrach]

7 minutes ago, Schllc said:

An instructor for my Aerostar brought up a good point to me about efficiency and cost on the lycoming up-540.  
But it’s valid in several other areas.  
I was very accustomed and comfortable with LOP, and I really wanted to try it out but the lycoming do not tolerate it as well in general, and on the twin, the speed loss is huge. 
While fuel is a big expense, I think it’s fair to say  so is tbo.  
I’ll use my  numbers to illustrate but feel free to plug in yours to see which makes sense. 
 

Aerostar ROP
220 knots at 32gph, tbo at 2000hrs. That’s 440k miles and $320k in fuel at $5gal.  
OH @$100k
$0.95 per mile

Aerostar LOP  
175 knots at 26gp, tbo at 2000hrs.  That’s 350k miles and $260k in fuel at $5gal.  
OH @$100k
$1.02 per mile  

 

acclaim ROP    
220 knots ROP at 21gph tbo 2200    
OH @$100k and two tops $25k
$0.78 per mile

acclaim LOP    
200 knots at 15 gph tbo 2200    
OH @$100k
$0.60 per mile

Encore LOP 
175 knots at 10gph, tbo 1800? 
oh @$100k    
$0.60 per mile. 
 

it’s an interesting way to look at it is all. 

A 20% speed loss for running LOP? Why?  Don’t all 601Ps have TN’d 540 S1A5s? Most angle valve Lycomings  love LOP and rarely need GAMIs to do so. Perhaps challenges specific to this particular application? 

I’m sure you’ve seen the pics of the 601P on GAMI’s website running the same power in both engines but one LOP and the other ROP.  Looked to me like both engines were just north of 70% power with the LOP engine running much cooler.

https://gami.com/articles/baconsbonus.php

[Schllc]

5 hours ago, Shadrach said:

A 20% speed loss for running LOP? Why?  Don’t all 601Ps have TN’d 540 S1A5s? Most angle valve Lycomings  love LOP and rarely need GAMIs to do so. Perhaps challenges specific to this particular application? 

I’m sure you’ve seen the pics of the 601P on GAMI’s website running the same power in both engines but one LOP and the other ROP.  Looked to me like both engines were just north of 70% power with the LOP engine running much cooler.

https://gami.com/articles/baconsbonus.php

I suspect it has to do with the rpm’s and the drag of a twin. My continental hardly has any noise difference from 2300 to 2500 and the economy/speed diff is negligible I usually cruise at 2400-2450. 
the lycoming really enjoys the low rpm’s, andl noise reduction is significant  

I usually run 2200 and 26” mp. 
The several folks I know that flys 601p’s see similar numbers so I don’t think I’m unique. 
both of my engines will run smoothly LOP, although it does take a lot longer than my Mooney to dial both of them in. The engines don’t stutter or stumble LOP, temps are all good, the engines just done “feel” as happy, and it’s so much slower…. They really seem silky smooth and responsive ROP.   It’s hard to explain really, maybe bc I’m such a newbie to the A. 
 

edit

those pics don’t show airspeed. And maybe it’s me that isn’t happy!

[N201MKTurbo]

Huh,

My Lycoming turbo Mooney goes faster LOP. The caveat of that statement is the CHTs. I can go faster LOP at 380 CHT. It just runs cooler LOP. I'm running 28 In. 2400 RPM and 1525 TIT.

[N201MKTurbo]

11 hours ago, Schllc said:

I suspect it has to do with the rpm’s and the drag of a twin. My continental hardly has any noise difference from 2300 to 2500 and the economy/speed diff is negligible I usually cruise at 2400-2450. 
the lycoming really enjoys the low rpm’s, andl noise reduction is significant  

I usually run 2200 and 26” mp. 
The several folks I know that flys 601p’s see similar numbers so I don’t think I’m unique. 
both of my engines will run smoothly LOP, although it does take a lot longer than my Mooney to dial both of them in. The engines don’t stutter or stumble LOP, temps are all good, the engines just done “feel” as happy, and it’s so much slower…. They really seem silky smooth and responsive ROP.   It’s hard to explain really, maybe bc I’m such a newbie to the A. 
 

edit

those pics don’t show airspeed. And maybe it’s me that isn’t happy!

What are your Power settings, FF and TITs, LOP and ROP? Your statements don't make any sense.

[Schllc]

56 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

What are your Power settings, FF and TITs, LOP and ROP? Your statements don't make any sense.

i think you missed my prior post FF is in there and power settings are a function of FF sooo.... 

assume MP and RPM are the same and tit's are kept the same at all the same at all power settings both ROP and LOP, the only thing that changes is FF.    

i prefer to keep tit's between 1550-1580.  cht's are never an issue at any of the power settings I fly.  

That being said, your comment is a little too vague to answer, what is it that you don't understand?  If you can be specific I can expand.  Also, i am not able to speak beyond my own experience in my airplanes, but i know intimately what is happening in my aircraft and with my engines.

Maybe i don't understand what you are asking?

[N201MKTurbo]

22 minutes ago, Schllc said:

i think you missed my prior post FF is in there and power settings are a function of FF sooo.... 

assume MP and RPM are the same and tit's are kept the same at all the same at all power settings both ROP and LOP, the only thing that changes is FF.    

i prefer to keep tit's between 1550-1580.  cht's are never an issue at any of the power settings I fly.  

That being said, your comment is a little too vague to answer, what is it that you don't understand?  If you can be specific I can expand.  Also, i am not able to speak beyond my own experience in my airplanes, but i know intimately what is happening in my aircraft and with my engines.

Maybe i don't understand what you are asking?

So, if you use the same MP and RPMs ROP and LOP, you will be way slower LOP. If you have a turbo, you can recover the lost power with MP and FF. When LOP I generally increase MP by 3 in. Then I adjust the mixture for a target TIT. After that it goes just as fast or faster than ROP. It usually saves about 15% in fuel flow for the same speed.

[Schllc]

30 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So, if you use the same MP and RPMs ROP and LOP, you will be way slower LOP. If you have a turbo, you can recover the lost power with MP and FF. When LOP I generally increase MP by 3 in. Then I adjust the mixture for a target TIT. After that it goes just as fast or faster than ROP. It usually saves about 15% in fuel flow for the same speed.

This has not been my experience in accliams,but lop and rop is a lot closer.

What you are describing is definitely not possible in the aerostar.

I experimented with a lot of combinations to see what was best balance of speed and economy. 

I have not found  lop to be faster at any phase of flight or power setting than rop in either plane. 

Not sure how you achieve that without exceeding tit's or cht's in your airplane but i have not been able to see those kinds of numbers in any  of the 15 acclaim,s i have flown or owned nor in the three aerostars.  I have only owned one, and i have almost 100 hours in it now.

[bcg]

It never ceases to amaze me how you guys can take a thread into a completely unrelated direction from the original post.  If that was an a Olympic sport, you'd all have gold medals. 

[201Steve]

lol @EricJ throwing some accolades to the HIGHLY COVETED AND DESIRED 1977 MOONEY M20j and it starts a model debate. Love that energy, boys. 

[Shadrach]

14 minutes ago, bcg said:

It never ceases to amaze me how you guys can take a thread into a completely unrelated direction from the original post.  If that was an an Olympic sport, you'd all have gold medals. 

There is only so much to be said about certain subjects. This is not a technical thread, it’s philosophical.  The nature of philosophical conversations is that they tend to meander.