My quest for speed

[AndreiC]

I have had my 1970 M20E for three years now, and it fits my mission profile perfectly; I never fly with more that one adult, so I don't need a medium body. The avionics are pretty much where I want them to be. Only thing bugging me is the speed (or lack thereof). A lot of testing leads me to conclude that the currently configured airplane gets about 143 kts cruise LOP (9.3 gph) and around 148 kts if I push it ROP (10.5-11 gph). These are the best speeds I could get out of her at altitudes of around 7500-9500, 2500 rpm.

I would like to hear the forum's opinion on how I could get her to be faster if I were to throw some money at the problem, maybe $15k tops. More specifically, my question is what would be the best bang for the buck to get more speed.

First question: is this a fool's errand? My plane, as it is, is worth about $80k. Would I be better off just biting the bullet -- selling it and spending another $40-50k to enter J territory? 

Here are things I considered that could potentially gain me more speed.

a) Switch to a Hartzell scimitar 2-blade prop from the current 3-blade McCauley. This is expensive -- probably around $10k, and I would only do it if I were sure to see a significant improvement in speed.

b) Install some STC-ed speed mods, like maybe the sloped windshield or one of the J-like cowls. Are any of these still sold? How much do they cost, and how much labor is involved in installing them? How much speed is gained?

c) Any other low hanging fruit? My mechanic used the travel boards and checked the rigging at the last annual; I had the plane washed and waxed recently; I tried flying with weight in the back. None of these made much difference as far as I can tell. 

Thanks in advance!

[Fritz1]

sounds like the bird is doing just fine, I had a G-model in the late 90s, stock it would do about 135 kt TAS, with all the speed mods it did about 155 Kt TAS, everything but powerflow exhaust and Lopresti cowl. The best bang for the buck are the Lasar cowl closure and the flap gap seals. Call Lasar and see if they currently make them, can't imagine not making the flap gap seals. It all really depends how attached you are to the current airframe, buying a modded airplane is certainly less expensive than doing it yourself, however no airplane flies as well as the one you have souped up yourself, the journey may be the destination

[AndreiC]

What does the LASAR cowl closure look like? I may have that one already, is it the one that closes the guppy mouth half way, at the bottom? 

I'll call LASAR to ask about the flap gap seals. What else did you have on your bird @Fritz1?

 

[201er]

56 minutes ago, AndreiC said:

I would like to hear the forum's opinion on how I could get her to be faster if I were to throw some money at the problem, maybe $15k tops. More specifically, my question is what would be the best bang for the buck to get more speed.

If old man Jose were still around, he’d tell you extended range fuel tanks and a piss hose.

It’s nice to have the plane be faster, but let’s face it, unless you fly 10 hours straight or fly hundreds of hours a year, how much time are you really saving with a few knots difference?

[AndreiC]

22 minutes ago, 201er said:

It’s nice to have the plane be faster, but let’s face it, unless you fly 10 hours straight or fly hundreds of hours a year, how much time are you really saving with a few knots difference?

I know it's stupid. I did all the calculations, and on my longest flights I would save like 15-20 minutes. No idea why this is obsessing me, but it does -- I want to see those book numbers of 155kts or so at 10000 feet.

[KSMooniac]

The biggest improvements will be the J windscreen and cowling, or as close to that as you can get.  Neither are trivial efforts.  The LASAR cowl closure helps a bit, the ARI cowl mod (no longer available, I believe) helps a bit more, and a true J cowl or better yet, the LoPresti cowl (also no longer available) would be the biggest help.  @Sabremech's cowl mod might be available at some point and would be the best choice IMO.  

The 3 blade McCaulley prop is likely costing you a few knots as well.  It's also pretty heavy, but I'm not sure if your E would benefit from getting weight off the nose or not.  On my J, my CG is biased forward so removing 12 lbs off the nose when I upgraded to the MT composite prop vs. the original 2-blade McCaulley helped me.  But if you are biased aft, then going to a lighter 2-blade prop might not help you.

The rest of the speed mods are fractional and should only be added if you have nothing left to do and have a lot of pride in your bird, and after you've thoroughly checked the rigging with the travel boards, checked all of the gear door fits when retracted, step retraction (for your plane, if applicable), etc.  If you're really obsessive about it, then look at further drag reduction with antennas and scoops.    I've been going down this trail for pretty much my entire ownership period because it fascinates me as an aerospace engineer, but at the end of the day, if my plane were 5 knots faster in cruise it really would not change how I fly at all, but I would be happier just because I've optimized my plane.

Having said all that, these planes were all hand-built, and there are variations from tail to tail that are hard to explicitly measure.  Some are just faster than others, and I suspect that variation might be in the fuselage/wing alignment, or other similar variations.  I've been saying for years now that one of these days I'm going to jack and level my plane, and take careful measurements of wing skew/tilt/alignment, etc. and see how "square" my particular J is.  Maybe this winter since I finally have a dream hangar with a nice floor and lights, and insulation.  

[Fritz1]

I had all the mods available in 99 including the low profile gear doors, one piece belly, 201 windshield, the whole works, hindsight the flap hinge covers did not help, everything else did, most of the stuff is still on the Lasar website, did not have scimitar prop, after it was all done airplane got painted which probably helped, the E with the short body is the fastest 4 banger, least amount of wetted surface, controls more responsive than the mid body, that might be the determining factor whether to soup up or not soup up if the airframe and the engine are solid

[ArtVandelay]

You would get an extra 10 knots in a J, so that’s an extra 30 nm over a 3 hour trip. You also would be able to carry more fuel, more range. If you want to take 5-6 hour trips without stopping, having plenty of fuel leftover, a J would save you a lot of time.

[47U]

54 minutes ago, AndreiC said:

No idea why this is obsessing me, but it does -- I want to see those book numbers of 155kts or so at 10000 feet.

You have a full-blown case of ‘Mooney-itis.’  

You might get to the 155 number with all the speed mods on your E… including wing root and stab fairings besides the 201 windscreen and maybe a new J/Lopresti/Sabremech cowl.  There’s a C on our ramp with inner gear doors.  

But, Mooney-itis is insidious.  Once you get to that 155 number, either with your highly modified E or a new-to-you J, you’ll be looking for more.  My advice, start looking for your Rocket…  

[AndreiC]

One other quick question. Is there any mod that would replace the infinite number of round head exposed screws on the underside of the wings and/or around the windshield with something flatter and less exposed? Would that make a difference?

[Fritz1]

The 201 windshield is riveted flush to my best recollection, not sure about round head screws on bottom of wing, my airplane does not have them, there are people that can add up such drag counts, never got that far, if the cowl closure is done next simple thing are flap gap and aileron gap seals, should get you 1-2 kt, see how that feels, windshield is time consuming and better done by somebody who has done a lot of them, tie down rings can be replaced with Lasar combo jack points

[Shadrach]

5 hours ago, AndreiC said:

I have had my 1970 M20E for three years now, and it fits my mission profile perfectly; I never fly with more that one adult, so I don't need a medium body. The avionics are pretty much where I want them to be. Only thing bugging me is the speed (or lack thereof). A lot of testing leads me to conclude that the currently configured airplane gets about 143 kts cruise LOP (9.3 gph) and around 148 kts if I push it ROP (10.5-11 gph). These are the best speeds I could get out of her at altitudes of around 7500-9500, 2500 rpm.

I would like to hear the forum's opinion on how I could get her to be faster if I were to throw some money at the problem, maybe $15k tops. More specifically, my question is what would be the best bang for the buck to get more speed.

First question: is this a fool's errand? My plane, as it is, is worth about $80k. Would I be better off just biting the bullet -- selling it and spending another $40-50k to enter J territory? 

Here are things I considered that could potentially gain me more speed.

a) Switch to a Hartzell scimitar 2-blade prop from the current 3-blade McCauley. This is expensive -- probably around $10k, and I would only do it if I were sure to see a significant improvement in speed.

b) Install some STC-ed speed mods, like maybe the sloped windshield or one of the J-like cowls. Are any of these still sold? How much do they cost, and how much labor is involved in installing them? How much speed is gained?

c) Any other low hanging fruit? My mechanic used the travel boards and checked the rigging at the last annual; I had the plane washed and waxed recently; I tried flying with weight in the back. None of these made much difference as far as I can tell. 

Thanks in advance!

So speedwise, your E is well within the normal range for the model if not a tad on the slow side.  The three bladed prop is not as efficient as a two blade. There are plenty of people who will tell you that it doesn’t make a difference and there are plenty that will tell you it’s costing you 5kts. You won’t have any idea unless you change propellers.

The truth is, it doesn’t matter because from a practical matter, none of these planes are separated by that much in terms of speed.

I have a 67F that I know it will do just over 150kts in cruise at just about any altitude under 10,000 feet. That being said, my current average GPS block speed as tracked over the last 5000nm is 144.9kts. It just recently fell below 145kts because of several trips under two hours that tend towards lower block speeds (for obvious reasons).

What would I need to do to get a significant increase in speed?

I’ve thought about this many times. Aircraft owners tend to assign a whole lot of value to things that really don’t make that big of a difference operationally. That’s why you’ll see people brag over a 7kt difference in cruise speed. 

The reality is that for me to realize a significant increase in time compression, range, and load carrying capacity, I would have to move into a high-performance twin or a turbine. 

Sometimes the best course of action is to recognize that what you have is delivering excellent, output value for the input.

If you want to tweak your E to be faster, I think that’s an admirable pursuit, it may respond to some minor massaging. However, even if you were able to fettle and message it into 155kt cruiser, the time savings for most trips would be minuscule.

I stopped wishing my bird was more than it is a long time ago and just decided to admire it for how well it does what it does. 

[Echo]

148 knots IS fast.  Numbers were marketing and nothing more.you have an awesome plane.   Fools errand?

[varlajo]

5 hours ago, AndreiC said:

First question: is this a fool's errand?

If it ain't broke... 

[Shadrach]

To add to my post above in terms of speed differences, a beautiful 2011 G36 took off behind me last week.  He also did a day trip and taxied by as I was closing up my hangar after my return.  For S's and G's, I just computed the round trip block speed of his 649NM trip...154.52kts.  I have two trips in my spreadsheet from the last 5 months that are comparable:

706NM with a block speed = 147.08kts 

708NM with a block speed = 147.5kts.   

Less than 8kts delta, but some folks would fall all over themselves talking about superior performance of that Bonanza when practically speaking, the difference in performance is negligible.  The biggest delta between the two is operating cost, purchase price and ramp appeal.

It's getting easier to be happy with what I have.

[Echo]

"The the biggest delta between the two is operating cost, purchase price and ramp appeal."-Shad

With a big part of the operating costs being fuel burn...

[Echo]

I used to be wowed by the 170-180 knot cruise of my Missile while burning 13.5gph, but the difference in travel for my mission was 15 minutes.  Not that big a deal.  1.45 vs. 2 hours.  I enjoy the journey so 15 minutes more flying is a pleasure.

[Utah20Gflyer]

If it were me I would either learn to be content with what I had or buy a K model or an Ovation.   A vintage Mooney is the Honda civic of airplanes.  It fills its role nicely but it isn’t a sports car.   
 

If I needed to buy a new prop because something is wrong with the old one then yeah, I’d spend more to buy the faster version, but planes are already expensive to own so why blow money trying to squeeze out a few knots out of a perfectly functional plane.  
 

Next annual you could check rigging and make sure your gear doors are nice and tight.   The step being down will cost you 2-3 knots.  Do you have the retractable step and is it functioning correctly?  A clean and waxed plane is supposedly a couple knots faster, is the plane all polished up?   Weight kills speed…are there things that can be taken out of the plane to save weight?    An aft CG helps with speed.  Have you tried putting everything you can in the baggage compartment?   In cruise move your seat back?   None of these things will make a big difference but you might be able to pick up 5 knots without spending any real money.  

[Schllc]

6 hours ago, 201er said:

If old man Jose were still around, he’d tell you extended range fuel tanks and a piss hose.

It’s nice to have the plane be faster, but let’s face it, unless you fly 10 hours straight or fly hundreds of hours a year, how much time are you really saving with a few knots difference?

Blasphemy!!!!!

But I kinda agree

[Shadrach]

41 minutes ago, Utah20Gflyer said:

If it were me I would either learn to be content with what I had or buy a K model or an Ovation.   A vintage Mooney is the Honda civic of airplanes.  It fills its role nicely but it isn’t a sports car.   
 

If I needed to buy a new prop because something is wrong with the old one then yeah, I’d spend more to buy the faster version, but planes are already expensive to own so why blow money trying to squeeze out a few knots out of a perfectly functional plane.  
 

Next annual you could check rigging and make sure your gear doors are nice and tight.   The step being down will cost you 2-3 knots.  Do you have the retractable step and is it functioning correctly?  A clean and waxed plane is supposedly a couple knots faster, is the plane all polished up?   Weight kills speed…are there things that can be taken out of the plane to save weight?    An aft CG helps with speed.  Have you tried putting everything you can in the baggage compartment?   In cruise move your seat back?   None of these things will make a big difference but you might be able to pick up 5 knots without spending any real money.  

Either you don't have many makes in your logbook or you are deliberately trolling. Civic is a poor analogy.

 

A K model will only really outrun a similarly powered NA Mooney above 10K. An Ovation is faster than a 200hp bird for sure but one has to talk themselves into caring about 15-20 kts. If you need to go faster than get a turbo and a nose hose. Below about 12K it's mostly bragging rights.

[ArtVandelay]

A vintage Mooney is the Honda civic of airplanes.  It fills its role nicely but it isn’t a sports car.   

Hey, that’s hitting close to home.

[AndreiC]

@ArtVandelay this is like one of those pictures where you don't notice a guy with half a mustache because of a good looking girl in the foreground... took me 5 minutes to understand what you were talking about.

I honestly thought my previous Cherokee was the Honda Civic of airplanes...

[Shadrach]

1 minute ago, AndreiC said:

@ArtVandelay this is like one of those pictures where you don't notice a guy with half a mustache because of a good looking girl in the foreground... took me 5 minutes to understand what you were talking about.

I honestly thought my previous Cherokee was the Honda Civic of airplanes...

That is a better comparison...and the C172 is the for Taurus of aviation.  Honestly the vintage Mooney is more like what Saab was prior to their demise. It's not big but it's big enough. It's not the fastest but it's it's far from slow. It's economical. It's quirky but well engineered. Generally designed to do more with less.

[varlajo]

1 hour ago, Utah20Gflyer said:

A vintage Mooney is the Honda civic of airplanes.

11 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

The vintage Mooney is more like what Saab was prior to their demise. It's not big but it's big enough. It's not the fastest but it's it's far from slow. It's economical. It's quirky but well engineered. Generally designed to do more with less.

Porsche 914 

[Shadrach]

1 minute ago, varlajo said:

Porsche 914 

Apt for a short body. The mid body is an excellent family hauler so it does not quite fit.