Piper Commanche vs Money 201

[O. Sami Saydjari]

I am looking at buying one of two planes: a 1978 Mooney M20J or a 1965
Piper Commanche PA-24-260. I have test driven both and I like the
handling of both. Both are about the same price. The avionics in the
Mooney are slightly better. This is a tough choice.

(1) Is there anyone out there that has flown both airplanes extensively
and can give me pros and cons of each from their perspective?

(2) Is there any other plane with similar price/performance capabilities
(cruise at better than 160nts, 750+ range) in the same price range
($75K-$100K) that I should consider?

(3) I heard Mooney is teetering on bankruptcy. Is this a real big
downside? Has anyone experienced owning a plane with a manufacturer
went bankrupt. Do parts become impossible to find?

-Sami
(remove the "_REMOVE_THIS" from the email address to respond directly)

[Stu Gotts]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:23:27 -0600, "O. Sami Saydjari"
> wrote:

>I am looking at buying one of two planes: a 1978 Mooney M20J or a 1965
>Piper Commanche PA-24-260. I have test driven both and I like the
>handling of both. Both are about the same price. The avionics in the
>Mooney are slightly better. This is a tough choice.
>
>(1) Is there anyone out there that has flown both airplanes extensively
>and can give me pros and cons of each from their perspective?
>
>(2) Is there any other plane with similar price/performance capabilities
>(cruise at better than 160nts, 750+ range) in the same price range
>($75K-$100K) that I should consider?
>
>(3) I heard Mooney is teetering on bankruptcy. Is this a real big
>downside? Has anyone experienced owning a plane with a manufacturer
>went bankrupt. Do parts become impossible to find?
>
>-Sami

1. Bonanza - there is no substitute.

2. Those speeds are vaporware, you'll never see them from either
machine.

3. Mooney seems to be emerging from their financial troubles, and
believe it or not, may own Beechcraft soon. Comanche parts are
becoming a bit difficult to find and added to the fact that the
aircraft is no being produced worries me. Also, a good Comanche
mechanic is a must if you want to keep the aircraft in the air. Good
luck.

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
O. Sami Saydjari > wrote:
>I am looking at buying one of two planes: a 1978 Mooney M20J or a 1965
>Piper Commanche PA-24-260. I have test driven both and I like the
>handling of both. Both are about the same price. The avionics in the
>Mooney are slightly better. This is a tough choice.

I considered buying a Mooney (J or upgraded F) for a long time, but
I ended up buying a 1965 PA-24-260. I've climbed all over an M20J,
and flown one for about an hour. I've got about 50 hours now in PA-24s.

Here are some tradeoffs I can think of:

The Mooney cruises faster.

The Comanche climbs faster.

The Comanche has much more interior room and carries a greater load.

The Comanche's baggage area is more accessible, especially in 260B+
models.

I'm 6'4" and fit in both. The Mooney does it with a lot of legroom
under the instrument panel, while the Comanche has a more typical
upright seating posture.

The Mooney has only 2/3rds as many cylinders to maintain.

The Comanche doesn't have cowl flaps (unless retrofitted with an
aftermarket cowling that requires them) or ram-air (though the M20J
doesn't *need* the ram air as much as the F did).

The Comanche's systems are easier to reach, in general. For example,
the original cowling has two large doors. In contrast, the Mooney is
"build around" some of the flight control torque tubes and avoinics
access may have to be through a panel on the cowling.

Both have reliable gear systems and simple mechanical manual extension
systems. The Mooney's can be tested in flight and then retracted
electrically. The Comanche technically has to be on jacks after a
manual extension, though some claim to do it while airborn.

The Mooney uses shock absorbing pucks of rubber in a trailing-link
configuration, while the Comanche uses struts.

The Comanche has greater prop clearance as well as the better shock
absorbing which makes it more suitable for unimproved strips (though
to be fair some Mooneys regulary fly out of such strips, and neither
is as versatile as a C182, or for that matter a Cub).

The Mooney's landing light is in the cowling, the Comanche's are in
the wings.

The Mooney has an all-flying tail (trim pivots the entire thing) while
the Comanche has a stabilator. Both have very positive trim control at
cruise. The travel on the trim control is excessive at low speeds in
the Comanche, IMO. I haven't flown the M20J enough to recall.

The Mooney has a wet wing which is prone to sealing problems (some have
been retrofitted with bladders which reduce capacity a little and
are better at trapping water) while the Comanche has bladders which
can develop leaks (especially if tied down in the sun without full
fuel). If the Comanche's bladders are original they're also very old.

Most Comanches carry more fuel than most Mooneys, but also need it to
get the same range (~13gph vs ~10gph). You can probably go a little
farther (far far beyond my endurance!) in a 86gal (usable) Mooney than
a 64gal M20J, and there are Comanches with tip tanks for a total of
116gal usable.

Old Mooneys and Comanches both have atrocious panels. Some newer
Mooneys have very nice panels. Some of both have been retrofitted.
It does make them hard to compare. Well equipped examples of both
are available, you just have to shop harder for a Comanche.

Both have a loyal following of owners.

Both were made by companies which have "gone out of business" several
times, but parts availability is still reasonably good for both.

>(2) Is there any other plane with similar price/performance capabilities
>(cruise at better than 160nts, 750+ range) in the same price range
>($75K-$100K) that I should consider?

Maybe the Commander 112/114/115. I didn't really hear anything about
them until after I bought my plane, though.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Chris Kennedy]

Stu Gotts wrote:

> 2. Those speeds are vaporware, you'll never see them from either
> machine.

160kts in a cleaned up Comanche isn't vapor -- that's only about 185MPH.
It's not even uncommon. I see speeds like that all the time in my
slightly-cleaned-up (Lopresti and Knots2U) 250 -- speeds that I'm
confident in because we were positively anal about evaluating each mod
that went on (and in some case, subsequently came off) the airframe.

> 3. Mooney seems to be emerging from their financial troubles, and
> believe it or not, may own Beechcraft soon. Comanche parts are
> becoming a bit difficult to find and added to the fact that the
> aircraft is no being produced worries me. Also, a good Comanche
> mechanic is a must if you want to keep the aircraft in the air. Good
> luck.

I've yet to find a Comanche part that wasn't available or couldn't be
fabricated by Webco or Johnston. That includes every bit and piece of
the gear system, stabilator trim tabs (had to replace one when
installing the Vne kit), aileron skins (an L-39 got dropped on one of
mine while my aircraft was undergoing a year-long refit), fuel cells and
other random bits-and-pieces. While it might take someone with
particular Comanche mojo to keep a 400 in the air, I've had no issues
with a 250 with a combination of doing my homework and otherwise
competent mechanics.

[Tony]

Go for the Comanche. They have good backing. (ie. ISC, webco ect) Parts
are very easy to get Webco has just about every thing. Parts are not
that much (compared to the Bonanza). I have flown a pa24-250 and trued
out to right around 180 mph. They are a good plane for the money. altho
the Bonanza will have a higher resale price. But if you sell the plane
in a few years I think you will get your money back and then some. Best
of luck
TONY
www.comancheflyer.com (has some comanche info)

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[Jeff]

I know a guy with a comanche 260, really nice plane, fast, good useful load.
his will do 160 kts.
Heck my 200 HP Turbo Arrow III typically does 150-155 kts.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


Stu Gotts wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:23:27 -0600, "O. Sami Saydjari"
> > wrote:
>
> >I am looking at buying one of two planes: a 1978 Mooney M20J or a 1965
> >Piper Commanche PA-24-260. I have test driven both and I like the
> >handling of both. Both are about the same price. The avionics in the
> >Mooney are slightly better. This is a tough choice.
> >
> >(1) Is there anyone out there that has flown both airplanes extensively
> >and can give me pros and cons of each from their perspective?
> >
> >(2) Is there any other plane with similar price/performance capabilities
> >(cruise at better than 160nts, 750+ range) in the same price range
> >($75K-$100K) that I should consider?
> >
> >(3) I heard Mooney is teetering on bankruptcy. Is this a real big
> >downside? Has anyone experienced owning a plane with a manufacturer
> >went bankrupt. Do parts become impossible to find?
> >
> >-Sami
>
> 1. Bonanza - there is no substitute.
>
> 2. Those speeds are vaporware, you'll never see them from either
> machine.
>
> 3. Mooney seems to be emerging from their financial troubles, and
> believe it or not, may own Beechcraft soon. Comanche parts are
> becoming a bit difficult to find and added to the fact that the
> aircraft is no being produced worries me. Also, a good Comanche
> mechanic is a must if you want to keep the aircraft in the air. Good
> luck.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 02:04:19 GMT, (Ben Jackson) wrote:

>In article >,
>O. Sami Saydjari > wrote:
>>I am looking at buying one of two planes: a 1978 Mooney M20J or a 1965
>>Piper Commanche PA-24-260. I have test driven both and I like the
>>handling of both. Both are about the same price. The avionics in the
>>Mooney are slightly better. This is a tough choice.
>
>I considered buying a Mooney (J or upgraded F) for a long time, but
>I ended up buying a 1965 PA-24-260. I've climbed all over an M20J,
>and flown one for about an hour. I've got about 50 hours now in PA-24s.
>
>Here are some tradeoffs I can think of:
>
>The Mooney cruises faster.
>
>The Comanche climbs faster.
>
>The Comanche has much more interior room and carries a greater load.
>
>The Comanche's baggage area is more accessible, especially in 260B+
>models.
>
>I'm 6'4" and fit in both. The Mooney does it with a lot of legroom
>under the instrument panel, while the Comanche has a more typical
>upright seating posture.
>
>The Mooney has only 2/3rds as many cylinders to maintain.
>
>The Comanche doesn't have cowl flaps (unless retrofitted with an
>aftermarket cowling that requires them) or ram-air (though the M20J
>doesn't *need* the ram air as much as the F did).
>
>The Comanche's systems are easier to reach, in general. For example,
>the original cowling has two large doors. In contrast, the Mooney is
>"build around" some of the flight control torque tubes and avoinics
>access may have to be through a panel on the cowling.
>
>Both have reliable gear systems and simple mechanical manual extension
>systems. The Mooney's can be tested in flight and then retracted
>electrically. The Comanche technically has to be on jacks after a
>manual extension, though some claim to do it while airborn.
>
>The Mooney uses shock absorbing pucks of rubber in a trailing-link
>configuration, while the Comanche uses struts.
>
>The Comanche has greater prop clearance as well as the better shock
>absorbing which makes it more suitable for unimproved strips (though
>to be fair some Mooneys regulary fly out of such strips, and neither
>is as versatile as a C182, or for that matter a Cub).
>
>The Mooney's landing light is in the cowling, the Comanche's are in
>the wings.
>
>The Mooney has an all-flying tail (trim pivots the entire thing) while
>the Comanche has a stabilator. Both have very positive trim control at
>cruise. The travel on the trim control is excessive at low speeds in
>the Comanche, IMO. I haven't flown the M20J enough to recall.
>
>The Mooney has a wet wing which is prone to sealing problems (some have
>been retrofitted with bladders which reduce capacity a little and
>are better at trapping water) while the Comanche has bladders which
>can develop leaks (especially if tied down in the sun without full
>fuel). If the Comanche's bladders are original they're also very old.
>
>Most Comanches carry more fuel than most Mooneys, but also need it to
>get the same range (~13gph vs ~10gph). You can probably go a little
>farther (far far beyond my endurance!) in a 86gal (usable) Mooney than
>a 64gal M20J, and there are Comanches with tip tanks for a total of
>116gal usable.
>
>Old Mooneys and Comanches both have atrocious panels. Some newer
>Mooneys have very nice panels. Some of both have been retrofitted.
>It does make them hard to compare. Well equipped examples of both
>are available, you just have to shop harder for a Comanche.
>
>Both have a loyal following of owners.
>
>Both were made by companies which have "gone out of business" several
>times, but parts availability is still reasonably good for both.
>
>>(2) Is there any other plane with similar price/performance capabilities
>>(cruise at better than 160nts, 750+ range) in the same price range
>>($75K-$100K) that I should consider?
>
>Maybe the Commander 112/114/115. I didn't really hear anything about
>them until after I bought my plane, though.


Nice summary, Ben

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Stu Gotts]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:16:33 -0800, Jeff > wrote:

>I know a guy with a comanche 260, really nice plane, fast, good useful load.
>his will do 160 kts.
>Heck my 200 HP Turbo Arrow III typically does 150-155 kts.

I guess these claims are correct. I was referring to a no tail wind
situation!!!


>Jeff
>http://www.turboarrow3.com
>
>
>Stu Gotts wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:23:27 -0600, "O. Sami Saydjari"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >I am looking at buying one of two planes: a 1978 Mooney M20J or a 1965
>> >Piper Commanche PA-24-260. I have test driven both and I like the
>> >handling of both. Both are about the same price. The avionics in the
>> >Mooney are slightly better. This is a tough choice.
>> >
>> >(1) Is there anyone out there that has flown both airplanes extensively
>> >and can give me pros and cons of each from their perspective?
>> >
>> >(2) Is there any other plane with similar price/performance capabilities
>> >(cruise at better than 160nts, 750+ range) in the same price range
>> >($75K-$100K) that I should consider?
>> >
>> >(3) I heard Mooney is teetering on bankruptcy. Is this a real big
>> >downside? Has anyone experienced owning a plane with a manufacturer
>> >went bankrupt. Do parts become impossible to find?
>> >
>> >-Sami
>>
>> 1. Bonanza - there is no substitute.
>>
>> 2. Those speeds are vaporware, you'll never see them from either
>> machine.
>>
>> 3. Mooney seems to be emerging from their financial troubles, and
>> believe it or not, may own Beechcraft soon. Comanche parts are
>> becoming a bit difficult to find and added to the fact that the
>> aircraft is no being produced worries me. Also, a good Comanche
>> mechanic is a must if you want to keep the aircraft in the air. Good
>> luck.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Stu Gotts
> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:16:33 -0800, Jeff > wrote:
>
> >I know a guy with a comanche 260, really nice plane, fast, good useful
> >load.
> >his will do 160 kts.
> >Heck my 200 HP Turbo Arrow III typically does 150-155 kts.
>
> I guess these claims are correct. I was referring to a no tail wind
> situation!!!

well, if we can talk about tailwinds, then my cherokee 140 is
a 155kt bird.

--
Bob Noel

[Tom S.]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:Duzvb.72103$Dw6.365187@attbi_s02...
>
> Both were made by companies which have "gone out of business" several
> times, but parts availability is still reasonably good for both.
>
> >(2) Is there any other plane with similar price/performance capabilities
> >(cruise at better than 160nts, 750+ range) in the same price range
> >($75K-$100K) that I should consider?
>
> Maybe the Commander 112/114/115. I didn't really hear anything about
> them until after I bought my plane, though.
>
And the Commander Aircraft Comp. is just about out of business, too. I was
thinking of a 114B recently, but declined when I was made aware of their
financial situation. It might disrupt replacement parts and it might not.
I'd hate to find out the hard way, though.

Now, instead, I'm about 95% sure I'll be picking up an F33A right after New
Years.

[Chris Kennedy]

Stu Gotts wrote:

>
> I guess these claims are correct. I was referring to a no tail wind
> situation!!!

So are we. Actually, to be precise in my case, the average speed seen
by flying reciprocal courses to factor wind out of the equation I don't
see any reason to hang an after market mod on the airframe if it doesn't
demonstrate a performance improvement, so if something goes on and
doesn't deliver it comes off again (rudder gap seals come to mind).

It's perfectly possible to make a PA24-250/260 cruise at or above
200MPH, but doing so requires tossing the factory cowl and demands the
Vne stabilator mod that most people haven't bothered to perform.

[Jeff]

I am referring to no tail wind also.
My t-arrow gets 150-155 KTAS - Not ground speed, and this is at 65% power. 3 days
ago, at 14,000 ft, I had a TAS of 160 kts and a GS of 183 kts.

Everyone I know who flies a t-arrow flight plans at least 150 kts.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


Stu Gotts wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:16:33 -0800, Jeff > wrote:
>
> >I know a guy with a comanche 260, really nice plane, fast, good useful load.
> >his will do 160 kts.
> >Heck my 200 HP Turbo Arrow III typically does 150-155 kts.
>
> I guess these claims are correct. I was referring to a no tail wind
> situation!!!
>
> >Jeff
> >http://www.turboarrow3.com
> >
> >
> >Stu Gotts wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:23:27 -0600, "O. Sami Saydjari"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >I am looking at buying one of two planes: a 1978 Mooney M20J or a 1965
> >> >Piper Commanche PA-24-260. I have test driven both and I like the
> >> >handling of both. Both are about the same price. The avionics in the
> >> >Mooney are slightly better. This is a tough choice.
> >> >
> >> >(1) Is there anyone out there that has flown both airplanes extensively
> >> >and can give me pros and cons of each from their perspective?
> >> >
> >> >(2) Is there any other plane with similar price/performance capabilities
> >> >(cruise at better than 160nts, 750+ range) in the same price range
> >> >($75K-$100K) that I should consider?
> >> >
> >> >(3) I heard Mooney is teetering on bankruptcy. Is this a real big
> >> >downside? Has anyone experienced owning a plane with a manufacturer
> >> >went bankrupt. Do parts become impossible to find?
> >> >
> >> >-Sami
> >>
> >> 1. Bonanza - there is no substitute.
> >>
> >> 2. Those speeds are vaporware, you'll never see them from either
> >> machine.
> >>
> >> 3. Mooney seems to be emerging from their financial troubles, and
> >> believe it or not, may own Beechcraft soon. Comanche parts are
> >> becoming a bit difficult to find and added to the fact that the
> >> aircraft is no being produced worries me. Also, a good Comanche
> >> mechanic is a must if you want to keep the aircraft in the air. Good
> >> luck.

[Jeff]

Your more then welcome to see the performance specs for a T-arrow, they are here
http://www.turboarrow3.com/newplane/specs.html

those are the book values tho and I havnt seen their speeds yet but I only fly at
65% power settings.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com

Stu Gotts wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:16:33 -0800, Jeff > wrote:
>
> >I know a guy with a comanche 260, really nice plane, fast, good useful load.
> >his will do 160 kts.
> >Heck my 200 HP Turbo Arrow III typically does 150-155 kts.
>
> I guess these claims are correct. I was referring to a no tail wind
> situation!!!
>
> >Jeff
> >http://www.turboarrow3.com
> >
> >
> >Stu Gotts wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:23:27 -0600, "O. Sami Saydjari"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >I am looking at buying one of two planes: a 1978 Mooney M20J or a 1965
> >> >Piper Commanche PA-24-260. I have test driven both and I like the
> >> >handling of both. Both are about the same price. The avionics in the
> >> >Mooney are slightly better. This is a tough choice.
> >> >
> >> >(1) Is there anyone out there that has flown both airplanes extensively
> >> >and can give me pros and cons of each from their perspective?
> >> >
> >> >(2) Is there any other plane with similar price/performance capabilities
> >> >(cruise at better than 160nts, 750+ range) in the same price range
> >> >($75K-$100K) that I should consider?
> >> >
> >> >(3) I heard Mooney is teetering on bankruptcy. Is this a real big
> >> >downside? Has anyone experienced owning a plane with a manufacturer
> >> >went bankrupt. Do parts become impossible to find?
> >> >
> >> >-Sami
> >>
> >> 1. Bonanza - there is no substitute.
> >>
> >> 2. Those speeds are vaporware, you'll never see them from either
> >> machine.
> >>
> >> 3. Mooney seems to be emerging from their financial troubles, and
> >> believe it or not, may own Beechcraft soon. Comanche parts are
> >> becoming a bit difficult to find and added to the fact that the
> >> aircraft is no being produced worries me. Also, a good Comanche
> >> mechanic is a must if you want to keep the aircraft in the air. Good
> >> luck.

[Tom S.]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> Your more then welcome to see the performance specs for a T-arrow, they
are here
> http://www.turboarrow3.com/newplane/specs.html
>
> those are the book values tho and I havnt seen their speeds yet but I only
fly at
> 65% power settings.
>
> Jeff
> http://www.turboarrow3.com
>
Have you/are you going to install GAMI turbo injectors in that thing?

[Jeff]

I have GamiJectors, wing root fairings, gap seals installed already.
a week ago I had new avionics installed. garmin 430, audio panel, garmin
x-ponder and some other stuff. Wanted the MX20 but that will have to wait
another 6 months.

The gamiJectors say you can run lean of peak, but when I tried it, I seemed to
lose some airspeed, so I lean to 12 gph which is just a tiny bit ROP, thats
seems to be the best mixture setting for me.

"Tom S." wrote:

> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Your more then welcome to see the performance specs for a T-arrow, they
> are here
> > http://www.turboarrow3.com/newplane/specs.html
> >
> > those are the book values tho and I havnt seen their speeds yet but I only
> fly at
> > 65% power settings.
> >
> > Jeff
> > http://www.turboarrow3.com
> >
> Have you/are you going to install GAMI turbo injectors in that thing?

[Stu Gotts]

Okay, I certainly believe you! ;-)

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:22:40 -0800, Jeff > wrote:

>I am referring to no tail wind also.
>My t-arrow gets 150-155 KTAS - Not ground speed, and this is at 65% power. 3 days
>ago, at 14,000 ft, I had a TAS of 160 kts and a GS of 183 kts.
>
>Everyone I know who flies a t-arrow flight plans at least 150 kts.
>
>Jeff
>http://www.turboarrow3.com
>
>
>Stu Gotts wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:16:33 -0800, Jeff > wrote:
>>
>> >I know a guy with a comanche 260, really nice plane, fast, good useful load.
>> >his will do 160 kts.
>> >Heck my 200 HP Turbo Arrow III typically does 150-155 kts.
>>
>> I guess these claims are correct. I was referring to a no tail wind
>> situation!!!
>>
>> >Jeff
>> >http://www.turboarrow3.com
>> >
>> >
>> >Stu Gotts wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:23:27 -0600, "O. Sami Saydjari"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I am looking at buying one of two planes: a 1978 Mooney M20J or a 1965
>> >> >Piper Commanche PA-24-260. I have test driven both and I like the
>> >> >handling of both. Both are about the same price. The avionics in the
>> >> >Mooney are slightly better. This is a tough choice.
>> >> >
>> >> >(1) Is there anyone out there that has flown both airplanes extensively
>> >> >and can give me pros and cons of each from their perspective?
>> >> >
>> >> >(2) Is there any other plane with similar price/performance capabilities
>> >> >(cruise at better than 160nts, 750+ range) in the same price range
>> >> >($75K-$100K) that I should consider?
>> >> >
>> >> >(3) I heard Mooney is teetering on bankruptcy. Is this a real big
>> >> >downside? Has anyone experienced owning a plane with a manufacturer
>> >> >went bankrupt. Do parts become impossible to find?
>> >> >
>> >> >-Sami
>> >>
>> >> 1. Bonanza - there is no substitute.
>> >>
>> >> 2. Those speeds are vaporware, you'll never see them from either
>> >> machine.
>> >>
>> >> 3. Mooney seems to be emerging from their financial troubles, and
>> >> believe it or not, may own Beechcraft soon. Comanche parts are
>> >> becoming a bit difficult to find and added to the fact that the
>> >> aircraft is no being produced worries me. Also, a good Comanche
>> >> mechanic is a must if you want to keep the aircraft in the air. Good
>> >> luck.

[Stu Gotts]

Ahem!!!!


On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:10:07 -0800, Jeff > wrote:

>I have GamiJectors, wing root fairings, gap seals installed already.
>a week ago I had new avionics installed. garmin 430, audio panel, garmin
>x-ponder and some other stuff. Wanted the MX20 but that will have to wait
>another 6 months.
>
>The gamiJectors say you can run lean of peak, but when I tried it, I seemed to
>lose some airspeed, so I lean to 12 gph which is just a tiny bit ROP, thats
>seems to be the best mixture setting for me.
>
>"Tom S." wrote:
>
>> "Jeff" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Your more then welcome to see the performance specs for a T-arrow, they
>> are here
>> > http://www.turboarrow3.com/newplane/specs.html
>> >
>> > those are the book values tho and I havnt seen their speeds yet but I only
>> fly at
>> > 65% power settings.
>> >
>> > Jeff
>> > http://www.turboarrow3.com
>> >
>> Have you/are you going to install GAMI turbo injectors in that thing?

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Ben, thank you so much. Your answer has been most helpful!
-sami

Ben Jackson wrote:

> In article >,
> O. Sami Saydjari > wrote:
>
>>I am looking at buying one of two planes: a 1978 Mooney M20J or a 1965
>>Piper Commanche PA-24-260. I have test driven both and I like the
>>handling of both. Both are about the same price. The avionics in the
>>Mooney are slightly better. This is a tough choice.
>>
>
> I considered buying a Mooney (J or upgraded F) for a long time, but
> I ended up buying a 1965 PA-24-260. I've climbed all over an M20J,
> and flown one for about an hour. I've got about 50 hours now in PA-24s.
>
> Here are some tradeoffs I can think of:
>
> The Mooney cruises faster.
>
> The Comanche climbs faster.
>
> The Comanche has much more interior room and carries a greater load.
>
> The Comanche's baggage area is more accessible, especially in 260B+
> models.
>
> I'm 6'4" and fit in both. The Mooney does it with a lot of legroom
> under the instrument panel, while the Comanche has a more typical
> upright seating posture.
>
> The Mooney has only 2/3rds as many cylinders to maintain.
>
> The Comanche doesn't have cowl flaps (unless retrofitted with an
> aftermarket cowling that requires them) or ram-air (though the M20J
> doesn't *need* the ram air as much as the F did).
>
> The Comanche's systems are easier to reach, in general. For example,
> the original cowling has two large doors. In contrast, the Mooney is
> "build around" some of the flight control torque tubes and avoinics
> access may have to be through a panel on the cowling.
>
> Both have reliable gear systems and simple mechanical manual extension
> systems. The Mooney's can be tested in flight and then retracted
> electrically. The Comanche technically has to be on jacks after a
> manual extension, though some claim to do it while airborn.
>
> The Mooney uses shock absorbing pucks of rubber in a trailing-link
> configuration, while the Comanche uses struts.
>
> The Comanche has greater prop clearance as well as the better shock
> absorbing which makes it more suitable for unimproved strips (though
> to be fair some Mooneys regulary fly out of such strips, and neither
> is as versatile as a C182, or for that matter a Cub).
>
> The Mooney's landing light is in the cowling, the Comanche's are in
> the wings.
>
> The Mooney has an all-flying tail (trim pivots the entire thing) while
> the Comanche has a stabilator. Both have very positive trim control at
> cruise. The travel on the trim control is excessive at low speeds in
> the Comanche, IMO. I haven't flown the M20J enough to recall.
>
> The Mooney has a wet wing which is prone to sealing problems (some have
> been retrofitted with bladders which reduce capacity a little and
> are better at trapping water) while the Comanche has bladders which
> can develop leaks (especially if tied down in the sun without full
> fuel). If the Comanche's bladders are original they're also very old.
>
> Most Comanches carry more fuel than most Mooneys, but also need it to
> get the same range (~13gph vs ~10gph). You can probably go a little
> farther (far far beyond my endurance!) in a 86gal (usable) Mooney than
> a 64gal M20J, and there are Comanches with tip tanks for a total of
> 116gal usable.
>
> Old Mooneys and Comanches both have atrocious panels. Some newer
> Mooneys have very nice panels. Some of both have been retrofitted.
> It does make them hard to compare. Well equipped examples of both
> are available, you just have to shop harder for a Comanche.
>
> Both have a loyal following of owners.
>
> Both were made by companies which have "gone out of business" several
> times, but parts availability is still reasonably good for both.
>
>
>>(2) Is there any other plane with similar price/performance capabilities
>>(cruise at better than 160nts, 750+ range) in the same price range
>>($75K-$100K) that I should consider?
>>
>
> Maybe the Commander 112/114/115. I didn't really hear anything about
> them until after I bought my plane, though.
>
>

[Stu Gotts]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:25:31 -0700, "Tom S." >
wrote:

>And the Commander Aircraft Comp. is just about out of business, too. I was
>thinking of a 114B recently, but declined when I was made aware of their
>financial situation. It might disrupt replacement parts and it might not.
>I'd hate to find out the hard way, though.
>
>Now, instead, I'm about 95% sure I'll be picking up an F33A right after New
>Years.

That's the spirit! You'll go farther and faster more comfortably on
less fuel, and won't have to worry about stretching the numbers when
bragging to your friends. Good man!

[Jeff]

LOL...Stu you kill me.
what plane do you own..just out of curiousty...
you know there ways to see the book performance on any airplane, like the f33
is here
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane116.shtml
its not that fast of an airplane.


>
>
> That's the spirit! You'll go farther and faster more comfortably on
> less fuel, and won't have to worry about stretching the numbers when
> bragging to your friends. Good man!

[Dan Luke]

"Jeff" wrote:
> The gamiJectors say you can run lean of peak, but when I tried it, I
> seemed to lose some airspeed,...

Which you should. LOP is for fuel efficiency and cool CHT's; it does not
produce peak power.

> ... so I lean to 12 gph which is just a
> tiny bit ROP, that seems to be the best mixture setting for me.

That's close to peak power.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:10:07 -0800, Jeff > wrote:

>The gamiJectors say you can run lean of peak, but when I tried it, I seemed to
>lose some airspeed, so I lean to 12 gph which is just a tiny bit ROP, thats
>seems to be the best mixture setting for me.

Jeff,

I don't have GAMIJECTORS but have read quite a bit about them. So let me
say the following but, by all means, check with Braley or someone you
respect as knowledgeable.

By running LOP you are running more efficiently -- by that I mean you
produce more HP per unit of fuel consumed. However, as you have noted,
leaning the mixture that far will reduce the total power produced, and you
will certainly see a drop in airspeed.

If by "running a tiny bit ROP" you mean in the range of 25-50° ROP EGT,
that is a baaad place to run an engine. CHT's are higher, and cylinder
pressures are also higher than at other settings. IF you are going to run
ROP, you should try to run around 100-125° ROP.

An alternate method of maintaining the increased BSFC, lower temperatures,
and lower cylinder pressures you obtain by running LOP EGT, if possible
with your setup, would be to, for example, set your power to 65%; lean to
25-50° LOP EGT; and then, instead of using the mixture control to get your
12 gph, use your throttle! That regains the power you lost while
maintaining the benefits of running LOP! You might find you need less than
12 gph to regain your lost airspeed. (GAMI should have a multiplier for
the fuel flow in your engine which you can use to determine HP from fuel
flow).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Jeff]

the tape you get with the gami jectors is not very good, but the guy
basically says that you can go lean of peak and not lose power. He even
demostrates it in his bonanza.
Also I have always been told that running lean will increase your CHT's,
running rich will keep your temps down. But gami says that using their
injectors you can run lean and not have a temp problem. I like ROP for the
power and because gas is cheaper then cylinders.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


Dan Luke wrote:

> "Jeff" wrote:
> > The gamiJectors say you can run lean of peak, but when I tried it, I
> > seemed to lose some airspeed,...
>
> Which you should. LOP is for fuel efficiency and cool CHT's; it does not
> produce peak power.
>
> > ... so I lean to 12 gph which is just a
> > tiny bit ROP, that seems to be the best mixture setting for me.
>
> That's close to peak power.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM

[Jeff]

I have played with leaning, did it as gami suggested, by running LOP I am down to
about 8-9 GPH which seems really low. I have an insight engine monitor which I use
when leaning. Leaning that much makes me nervous, I always feel like I will kill
the engine. the 12 gph is probably right about 50 degrees ROP, 13 will make it
about 100 degree's ROP.
I am flying sunday morning to cedar city UT to practice some instrument approaches
with my new garmin 430 so will take the time to really mess with the leaning.

But I thought that by going lean, then increasing MP to get back lost power would
put more stress on the engine thus making it run at a higher output.
I have a turbo, so I only fly at 65% power to keep the temps down since I dont have
an intercooler. All the other t-arrow owners I know said by flying at 75% power
they have cracked alot of cylinders. so the way I have been doing it was after
getting to cruise altitude, I would lean to about 12 gph which is consistant with
65% power.
But hell, I may have been doing it all wrong knowing me :)

BTW I think your mooney or the 201 has the same engine I have, I have to look and
see for sure. Its the TSIO-360-FB, 6 cylinder, fuel injected and rated at 215 HP in
some airplanes.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:10:07 -0800, Jeff > wrote:
>
> >The gamiJectors say you can run lean of peak, but when I tried it, I seemed to
> >lose some airspeed, so I lean to 12 gph which is just a tiny bit ROP, thats
> >seems to be the best mixture setting for me.
>
> Jeff,
>
> I don't have GAMIJECTORS but have read quite a bit about them. So let me
> say the following but, by all means, check with Braley or someone you
> respect as knowledgeable.
>
> By running LOP you are running more efficiently -- by that I mean you
> produce more HP per unit of fuel consumed. However, as you have noted,
> leaning the mixture that far will reduce the total power produced, and you
> will certainly see a drop in airspeed.
>
> If by "running a tiny bit ROP" you mean in the range of 25-50° ROP EGT,
> that is a baaad place to run an engine. CHT's are higher, and cylinder
> pressures are also higher than at other settings. IF you are going to run
> ROP, you should try to run around 100-125° ROP.
>
> An alternate method of maintaining the increased BSFC, lower temperatures,
> and lower cylinder pressures you obtain by running LOP EGT, if possible
> with your setup, would be to, for example, set your power to 65%; lean to
> 25-50° LOP EGT; and then, instead of using the mixture control to get your
> 12 gph, use your throttle! That regains the power you lost while
> maintaining the benefits of running LOP! You might find you need less than
> 12 gph to regain your lost airspeed. (GAMI should have a multiplier for
> the fuel flow in your engine which you can use to determine HP from fuel
> flow).
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:44:32 -0800, Jeff > wrote:

>I have played with leaning, did it as gami suggested, by running LOP I am down to
>about 8-9 GPH which seems really low. I have an insight engine monitor which I use
>when leaning. Leaning that much makes me nervous, I always feel like I will kill
>the engine.

If your GAMI's are perfectly matched, you should kill the engine before
noting any roughness! But I don't think I would be nervous at those
settings. Besides, you could always enrichen and restart the engine.

I don't have a fuel flow meter, nor do I have GAMI's, but when I want to
fly economically, I will generally lean until all cylinders have shown a
one bar drop (from peak EGT) on my Insight GEM. This equates to 25-50°
LOP. At that setting, I'm generally burning 7-7.5 gph on my four cylinder
engine. That number is based on measuring how much fuel it takes to fill
the tank per unit time, not on a fuel flow meter.

If I had a fuel flow meter, I would probably be more aggressive about
adding back power.


> the 12 gph is probably right about 50 degrees ROP, 13 will make it
>about 100 degree's ROP.

At least for a Lycoming IO360, that's about the worst place to run it so
far as cylinder pressures and CHT's are concerned.

>I am flying sunday morning to cedar city UT to practice some instrument approaches
>with my new garmin 430 so will take the time to really mess with the leaning.
>
>But I thought that by going lean, then increasing MP to get back lost power would
>put more stress on the engine thus making it run at a higher output.

I believe your understanding is incorrect. My understanding is that one of
the advantages of running LOP is that you are decreasing the *rate* of burn
of the fuel. This, in turn, reduces *peak* cylinder pressure which is felt
to be an important factor in cylinder damage. By increasing the MP to get
back lost power , you must, of course, put "more stress on the engine" but
it is still *less* stress than you would get by running the same power ROP
by increasing the fuel flow using your mixture control.

Braley, the head of GAMI, reports that he routinely runs his TN'd Bonanza
at 85% power LOP.


>I have a turbo, so I only fly at 65% power to keep the temps down since I dont have
>an intercooler. All the other t-arrow owners I know said by flying at 75% power
>they have cracked alot of cylinders. so the way I have been doing it was after
>getting to cruise altitude, I would lean to about 12 gph which is consistant with
>65% power.
>But hell, I may have been doing it all wrong knowing me :)
>
>BTW I think your mooney or the 201 has the same engine I have, I have to look and
>see for sure. Its the TSIO-360-FB, 6 cylinder, fuel injected and rated at 215 HP in
>some airplanes.
>

No, my Mooney has a Lycoming IO360A1A -- a four cylinder, fuel injected
engine. It is rated at 200hp.

GAMI has an engine management course that others have found valuable. In
addition, John Deakin has some articles on AVWEB (his column is called
Pelican Perch) which speak directly to the point you are wrestling with.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Stu Gotts]

Whoa! Seems like you get the picture, Ron!

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:01:20 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld
> wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:10:07 -0800, Jeff > wrote:
>
>>The gamiJectors say you can run lean of peak, but when I tried it, I seemed to
>>lose some airspeed, so I lean to 12 gph which is just a tiny bit ROP, thats
>>seems to be the best mixture setting for me.
>
>Jeff,
>
>I don't have GAMIJECTORS but have read quite a bit about them. So let me
>say the following but, by all means, check with Braley or someone you
>respect as knowledgeable.
>
>By running LOP you are running more efficiently -- by that I mean you
>produce more HP per unit of fuel consumed. However, as you have noted,
>leaning the mixture that far will reduce the total power produced, and you
>will certainly see a drop in airspeed.
>
>If by "running a tiny bit ROP" you mean in the range of 25-50° ROP EGT,
>that is a baaad place to run an engine. CHT's are higher, and cylinder
>pressures are also higher than at other settings. IF you are going to run
>ROP, you should try to run around 100-125° ROP.
>
>An alternate method of maintaining the increased BSFC, lower temperatures,
>and lower cylinder pressures you obtain by running LOP EGT, if possible
>with your setup, would be to, for example, set your power to 65%; lean to
>25-50° LOP EGT; and then, instead of using the mixture control to get your
>12 gph, use your throttle! That regains the power you lost while
>maintaining the benefits of running LOP! You might find you need less than
>12 gph to regain your lost airspeed. (GAMI should have a multiplier for
>the fuel flow in your engine which you can use to determine HP from fuel
>flow).
>
>
>Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Dan Luke]

"Jeff" wrote:
> the tape you get with the gami jectors is not very good, but
> the guy basically says that you can go lean of peak and not
> lose power. He even demostrates it in his bonanza.

You are having problems understanding because you are over-generalizing.
What the guy says is true for partricular power settings and CHTs. The
value of Gamis is that they allow you to run at a lower fuel flow with
lower CHTs while making the same power that you would at ~100 deg ROP.
If you insist on running at a peak power mixture setting, Gamis are of
little value to you.

> Also I have always been told that running lean will increase your
> CHT's, running rich will keep your temps down.

You have been told a half truth, at best.

> But gami says that using their
> injectors you can run lean and not have a temp problem.

They are correct, but you must not over-simplify what they are saying.
You must have proper engine instrumentation and follow their operational
techniques. If you do, you may run LOP and have cooler cylinders.

> I like ROP for the
> power...

Then why did you buy the Gamis?

> ...and because gas is cheaper then cylinders.

The setting you use, peak power, is the worst of all for cylinder stress
and produces the very highest CHTs.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Stu Gotts]

Full throttle, use the mixture to control MP and the prop to control
speed. If the engine doesn't have any induction leaks, LOP is a
possibility without any problems, BUT you should know where you're
running. You're looking for a good balance. Lycomings generally have
good induction systems, the GAMI's help the big bore Continentals.

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:44:32 -0800, Jeff > wrote:

>I have played with leaning, did it as gami suggested, by running LOP I am down to
>about 8-9 GPH which seems really low. I have an insight engine monitor which I use
>when leaning. Leaning that much makes me nervous, I always feel like I will kill
>the engine. the 12 gph is probably right about 50 degrees ROP, 13 will make it
>about 100 degree's ROP.
>I am flying sunday morning to cedar city UT to practice some instrument approaches
>with my new garmin 430 so will take the time to really mess with the leaning.
>
>But I thought that by going lean, then increasing MP to get back lost power would
>put more stress on the engine thus making it run at a higher output.
>I have a turbo, so I only fly at 65% power to keep the temps down since I dont have
>an intercooler. All the other t-arrow owners I know said by flying at 75% power
>they have cracked alot of cylinders. so the way I have been doing it was after
>getting to cruise altitude, I would lean to about 12 gph which is consistant with
>65% power.
>But hell, I may have been doing it all wrong knowing me :)
>
>BTW I think your mooney or the 201 has the same engine I have, I have to look and
>see for sure. Its the TSIO-360-FB, 6 cylinder, fuel injected and rated at 215 HP in
>some airplanes.
>
>Jeff
>http://www.turboarrow3.com
>
>
>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:10:07 -0800, Jeff > wrote:
>>
>> >The gamiJectors say you can run lean of peak, but when I tried it, I seemed to
>> >lose some airspeed, so I lean to 12 gph which is just a tiny bit ROP, thats
>> >seems to be the best mixture setting for me.
>>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> I don't have GAMIJECTORS but have read quite a bit about them. So let me
>> say the following but, by all means, check with Braley or someone you
>> respect as knowledgeable.
>>
>> By running LOP you are running more efficiently -- by that I mean you
>> produce more HP per unit of fuel consumed. However, as you have noted,
>> leaning the mixture that far will reduce the total power produced, and you
>> will certainly see a drop in airspeed.
>>
>> If by "running a tiny bit ROP" you mean in the range of 25-50° ROP EGT,
>> that is a baaad place to run an engine. CHT's are higher, and cylinder
>> pressures are also higher than at other settings. IF you are going to run
>> ROP, you should try to run around 100-125° ROP.
>>
>> An alternate method of maintaining the increased BSFC, lower temperatures,
>> and lower cylinder pressures you obtain by running LOP EGT, if possible
>> with your setup, would be to, for example, set your power to 65%; lean to
>> 25-50° LOP EGT; and then, instead of using the mixture control to get your
>> 12 gph, use your throttle! That regains the power you lost while
>> maintaining the benefits of running LOP! You might find you need less than
>> 12 gph to regain your lost airspeed. (GAMI should have a multiplier for
>> the fuel flow in your engine which you can use to determine HP from fuel
>> flow).
>>
>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Stu Gotts]

Which kind to you think?

I've yet to see the majority of planes get the book numbers, so I'd
say that's a bit aggressive.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:04:07 -0800, Jeff > wrote:

>LOL...Stu you kill me.
>what plane do you own..just out of curiousty...
>you know there ways to see the book performance on any airplane, like the f33
>is here
>http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane116.shtml
>its not that fast of an airplane.
>
>
>>
>>
>> That's the spirit! You'll go farther and faster more comfortably on
>> less fuel, and won't have to worry about stretching the numbers when
>> bragging to your friends. Good man!

[Tom S.]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> I have GamiJectors, wing root fairings, gap seals installed already.
> a week ago I had new avionics installed. garmin 430, audio panel, garmin
> x-ponder and some other stuff. Wanted the MX20 but that will have to wait
> another 6 months.
>
> The gamiJectors say you can run lean of peak, but when I tried it, I
seemed to
> lose some airspeed, so I lean to 12 gph which is just a tiny bit ROP,
thats
> seems to be the best mixture setting for me.
>
You should be leaning to 50 LOP. Your CHT's will be lower and you fuel flow
will be lower as well...AIA, easier on the engine.

Read John Deakins series on leaning and engine operations on AvWeb...you'll
be quite surprised. http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182146-1.html

[Tom S.]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Jeff" wrote:
> > The gamiJectors say you can run lean of peak, but when I tried it, I
> > seemed to lose some airspeed,...
>
> Which you should. LOP is for fuel efficiency and cool CHT's; it does not
> produce peak power.
>
> > ... so I lean to 12 gph which is just a
> > tiny bit ROP, that seems to be the best mixture setting for me.
>
> That's close to peak power.
> --
In that case the engine runs hotter and plug fouling is much more likely.

[Tom S.]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> the tape you get with the gami jectors is not very good, but the guy
> basically says that you can go lean of peak and not lose power. He even
> demostrates it in his bonanza.
> Also I have always been told that running lean will increase your CHT's,
> running rich will keep your temps down. But gami says that using their
> injectors you can run lean and not have a temp problem. I like ROP for the
> power and because gas is cheaper then cylinders.

Thing is, you're doing MORE DAMAGE to your cylinders.

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html

[Jeff]

what makes me nervous is that the engine does not get rough, I was assuming due to the
gami's, so I am not sure where the cut off point would be. I have leaned it to 8 gph and
the engine was still running fine, but that just seems to much

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:44:32 -0800, Jeff > wrote:
>
> >I have played with leaning, did it as gami suggested, by running LOP I am down to
> >about 8-9 GPH which seems really low. I have an insight engine monitor which I use
> >when leaning. Leaning that much makes me nervous, I always feel like I will kill
> >the engine.
>
> If your GAMI's are perfectly matched, you should kill the engine before
> noting any roughness! But I don't think I would be nervous at those
> settings. Besides, you could always enrichen and restart the engine.
>
> I don't have a fuel flow meter, nor do I have GAMI's, but when I want to
> fly economically, I will generally lean until all cylinders have shown a
> one bar drop (from peak EGT) on my Insight GEM. This equates to 25-50°
> LOP. At that setting, I'm generally burning 7-7.5 gph on my four cylinder
> engine. That number is based on measuring how much fuel it takes to fill
> the tank per unit time, not on a fuel flow meter.
>
> If I had a fuel flow meter, I would probably be more aggressive about
> adding back power.
>
> > the 12 gph is probably right about 50 degrees ROP, 13 will make it
> >about 100 degree's ROP.
>
> At least for a Lycoming IO360, that's about the worst place to run it so
> far as cylinder pressures and CHT's are concerned.
>
> >I am flying sunday morning to cedar city UT to practice some instrument approaches
> >with my new garmin 430 so will take the time to really mess with the leaning.
> >
> >But I thought that by going lean, then increasing MP to get back lost power would
> >put more stress on the engine thus making it run at a higher output.
>
> I believe your understanding is incorrect. My understanding is that one of
> the advantages of running LOP is that you are decreasing the *rate* of burn
> of the fuel. This, in turn, reduces *peak* cylinder pressure which is felt
> to be an important factor in cylinder damage. By increasing the MP to get
> back lost power , you must, of course, put "more stress on the engine" but
> it is still *less* stress than you would get by running the same power ROP
> by increasing the fuel flow using your mixture control.
>
> Braley, the head of GAMI, reports that he routinely runs his TN'd Bonanza
> at 85% power LOP.
>
> >I have a turbo, so I only fly at 65% power to keep the temps down since I dont have
> >an intercooler. All the other t-arrow owners I know said by flying at 75% power
> >they have cracked alot of cylinders. so the way I have been doing it was after
> >getting to cruise altitude, I would lean to about 12 gph which is consistant with
> >65% power.
> >But hell, I may have been doing it all wrong knowing me :)
> >
> >BTW I think your mooney or the 201 has the same engine I have, I have to look and
> >see for sure. Its the TSIO-360-FB, 6 cylinder, fuel injected and rated at 215 HP in
> >some airplanes.
> >
>
> No, my Mooney has a Lycoming IO360A1A -- a four cylinder, fuel injected
> engine. It is rated at 200hp.
>
> GAMI has an engine management course that others have found valuable. In
> addition, John Deakin has some articles on AVWEB (his column is called
> Pelican Perch) which speak directly to the point you are wrestling with.
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Jeff]

you dont go full throttle on a turbo charged engine with a fixed wastegate. th eonly
time when you will see full throttle (this includes take off, take off in a t-arrow you
only use 41' mp then reduce power to 75% for cruise climb) is when you start to reach
critical altitude for the turbo charger, then you can add RPM to regain more power.

Stu Gotts wrote:

> Full throttle, use the mixture to control MP and the prop to control
> speed. If the engine doesn't have any induction leaks, LOP is a
> possibility without any problems, BUT you should know where you're
> running. You're looking for a good balance. Lycomings generally have
> good induction systems, the GAMI's help the big bore Continentals.
>
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:44:32 -0800, Jeff > wrote:
>
> >I have played with leaning, did it as gami suggested, by running LOP I am down to
> >about 8-9 GPH which seems really low. I have an insight engine monitor which I use
> >when leaning. Leaning that much makes me nervous, I always feel like I will kill
> >the engine. the 12 gph is probably right about 50 degrees ROP, 13 will make it
> >about 100 degree's ROP.
> >I am flying sunday morning to cedar city UT to practice some instrument approaches
> >with my new garmin 430 so will take the time to really mess with the leaning.
> >
> >But I thought that by going lean, then increasing MP to get back lost power would
> >put more stress on the engine thus making it run at a higher output.
> >I have a turbo, so I only fly at 65% power to keep the temps down since I dont have
> >an intercooler. All the other t-arrow owners I know said by flying at 75% power
> >they have cracked alot of cylinders. so the way I have been doing it was after
> >getting to cruise altitude, I would lean to about 12 gph which is consistant with
> >65% power.
> >But hell, I may have been doing it all wrong knowing me :)
> >
> >BTW I think your mooney or the 201 has the same engine I have, I have to look and
> >see for sure. Its the TSIO-360-FB, 6 cylinder, fuel injected and rated at 215 HP in
> >some airplanes.
> >
> >Jeff
> >http://www.turboarrow3.com
> >
> >
> >Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:10:07 -0800, Jeff > wrote:
> >>
> >> >The gamiJectors say you can run lean of peak, but when I tried it, I seemed to
> >> >lose some airspeed, so I lean to 12 gph which is just a tiny bit ROP, thats
> >> >seems to be the best mixture setting for me.
> >>
> >> Jeff,
> >>
> >> I don't have GAMIJECTORS but have read quite a bit about them. So let me
> >> say the following but, by all means, check with Braley or someone you
> >> respect as knowledgeable.
> >>
> >> By running LOP you are running more efficiently -- by that I mean you
> >> produce more HP per unit of fuel consumed. However, as you have noted,
> >> leaning the mixture that far will reduce the total power produced, and you
> >> will certainly see a drop in airspeed.
> >>
> >> If by "running a tiny bit ROP" you mean in the range of 25-50° ROP EGT,
> >> that is a baaad place to run an engine. CHT's are higher, and cylinder
> >> pressures are also higher than at other settings. IF you are going to run
> >> ROP, you should try to run around 100-125° ROP.
> >>
> >> An alternate method of maintaining the increased BSFC, lower temperatures,
> >> and lower cylinder pressures you obtain by running LOP EGT, if possible
> >> with your setup, would be to, for example, set your power to 65%; lean to
> >> 25-50° LOP EGT; and then, instead of using the mixture control to get your
> >> 12 gph, use your throttle! That regains the power you lost while
> >> maintaining the benefits of running LOP! You might find you need less than
> >> 12 gph to regain your lost airspeed. (GAMI should have a multiplier for
> >> the fuel flow in your engine which you can use to determine HP from fuel
> >> flow).
> >>
> >> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Jeff]

Right, I know what they are suppose to do, but losing power and then
regaining it by adding MP does not seem right.

the gami's still have benefit because the cylinders all peak about the same
time and they pretty much stay the same generating more efficency

they do not offer any operational techniques. You do not get much in the
gami package, some forms to fill out after you do a test and send it back
into them and the video tape.

In a turbo charged engine, running rich is recommended to help keep the
engine cool. leaning is not done at all untill you get to cruise altitude.
remember, turbo charged engines and non aspirated engines are are flown
differently. My previous airplane - a cherokee 180 was a no brainer and easy
to lean.
I have gone through different settings with my mechanic, he taught me alot
about how the engine runs.

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Jeff" wrote:
> > the tape you get with the gami jectors is not very good, but
> > the guy basically says that you can go lean of peak and not
> > lose power. He even demostrates it in his bonanza.
>
> You are having problems understanding because you are over-generalizing.
> What the guy says is true for partricular power settings and CHTs. The
> value of Gamis is that they allow you to run at a lower fuel flow with
> lower CHTs while making the same power that you would at ~100 deg ROP.
> If you insist on running at a peak power mixture setting, Gamis are of
> little value to you.
>
> > Also I have always been told that running lean will increase your
> > CHT's, running rich will keep your temps down.
>
> You have been told a half truth, at best.
>
> > But gami says that using their
> > injectors you can run lean and not have a temp problem.
>
> They are correct, but you must not over-simplify what they are saying.
> You must have proper engine instrumentation and follow their operational
> techniques. If you do, you may run LOP and have cooler cylinders.
>
> > I like ROP for the
> > power...
>
> Then why did you buy the Gamis?
>
> > ...and because gas is cheaper then cylinders.
>
> The setting you use, peak power, is the worst of all for cylinder stress
> and produces the very highest CHTs.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Jeff" wrote:
> I have leaned it to 8 gph and the engine was still running fine,
> but that just seems to much.

Why?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jeff]

he is discussing a normally aspirated engine.
there are other articles on avweb dealing with turbo's that I have read.

"Tom S." wrote:

> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > the tape you get with the gami jectors is not very good, but the guy
> > basically says that you can go lean of peak and not lose power. He even
> > demostrates it in his bonanza.
> > Also I have always been told that running lean will increase your CHT's,
> > running rich will keep your temps down. But gami says that using their
> > injectors you can run lean and not have a temp problem. I like ROP for the
> > power and because gas is cheaper then cylinders.
>
> Thing is, you're doing MORE DAMAGE to your cylinders.
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:49:28 -0800, Jeff > wrote:

>what makes me nervous is that the engine does not get rough, I was assuming due to the
>gami's, so I am not sure where the cut off point would be. I have leaned it to 8 gph and
>the engine was still running fine, but that just seems to much

How many degrees LOP are you at 8 or 9 gph?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Tom S.]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> he is discussing a normally aspirated engine.
> there are other articles on avweb dealing with turbo's that I have read.
>

Concept is the same, and the techniques/results are the same. The NA vs
/turbo differences are more a matter of when you do what.

> "Tom S." wrote:
>
> > "Jeff" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > the tape you get with the gami jectors is not very good, but the guy
> > > basically says that you can go lean of peak and not lose power. He
even
> > > demostrates it in his bonanza.
> > > Also I have always been told that running lean will increase your
CHT's,
> > > running rich will keep your temps down. But gami says that using
their
> > > injectors you can run lean and not have a temp problem. I like ROP for
the
> > > power and because gas is cheaper then cylinders.
> >
> > Thing is, you're doing MORE DAMAGE to your cylinders.
> >
> > http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html
>

[Stu Gotts]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:54:34 -0800, Jeff > wrote:

>you dont go full throttle on a turbo charged engine with a fixed wastegate. th eonly
>time when you will see full throttle (this includes take off, take off in a t-arrow you
>only use 41' mp then reduce power to 75% for cruise climb) is when you start to reach
>critical altitude for the turbo charger, then you can add RPM to regain more power.

Correct! I was speaking about N/A, sorry.

[Jeff]

because I dont want to kill the engine.
when you lean that much and dont get any engine roughness, my common
sense (and knowing my airplane) tells me thats more then plenty.

I was leaning by tempeture today and 12 gph was right at 100 degrees ROP



Dan Luke wrote:

> "Jeff" wrote:
> > I have leaned it to 8 gph and the engine was still running fine,
> > but that just seems to much.
>
> Why?
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM

[Jeff]

it peaks at about 10-10.5 gph
today I took my time, after it peaked, I noted the temp, then increased the richness about
100 degrees, which put me at 12-12.2 gph



Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:49:28 -0800, Jeff > wrote:
>
> >what makes me nervous is that the engine does not get rough, I was assuming due to the
> >gami's, so I am not sure where the cut off point would be. I have leaned it to 8 gph and
> >the engine was still running fine, but that just seems to much
>
> How many degrees LOP are you at 8 or 9 gph?
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Jeff]

with as many types of planes out there as there are, there is no telling, asking
someone to guess the type of plane you have is about the same as asking someone to
guess your social security number.

I havnt seen any get the book number either, but you get pretty close if you
subtract 10 kts from what they say they will do. Excxeption is Cirrus, people who
own them tend to say they get pretty much what the book says they will get.

Stu Gotts wrote:

> Which kind to you think?
>
> I've yet to see the majority of planes get the book numbers, so I'd
> say that's a bit aggressive.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:45:14 -0800, Jeff > wrote:

>it peaks at about 10-10.5 gph
>today I took my time, after it peaked, I noted the temp, then increased the richness about
>100 degrees, which put me at 12-12.2 gph
>
>
>

Well, 100° ROP *is* in a safe area so far as CHT is concerned. But you'd
still reduce your peak cylinder pressures by 7-8% by running the same HP at
50° LOP. This will result in less stresses on your engine.

And your BSFC will be improved, also, leading to decreased fuel consumption
for the same HP generated.

Perhaps as you gain more experience with the GAMI's, you'll feel more
comfortable running LOP. I don't believe that running 50° LOP EGT with a
smooth engine puts you in any risk of getting so lean that the engine might
stop.

However, even if you choose to keep things ROP, you'll still show some
improvement in fuel consumption due to the more balanced fuel flows.

Best wishes,

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Jeff]

see this is what confuses me, if you run LOP, lose some HP, then add MP to regain the lost HP,
are'nt you still putting the same stress on the engine?
I have been running the gami's for about 8 months now.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

>
> Well, 100° ROP *is* in a safe area so far as CHT is concerned. But you'd
> still reduce your peak cylinder pressures by 7-8% by running the same HP at
> 50° LOP. This will result in less stresses on your engine.
>
> And your BSFC will be improved, also, leading to decreased fuel consumption
> for the same HP generated.
>
> Perhaps as you gain more experience with the GAMI's, you'll feel more
> comfortable running LOP. I don't believe that running 50° LOP EGT with a
> smooth engine puts you in any risk of getting so lean that the engine might
> stop.
>
> However, even if you choose to keep things ROP, you'll still show some
> improvement in fuel consumption due to the more balanced fuel flows.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:57:28 -0800, Jeff > wrote:

>see this is what confuses me, if you run LOP, lose some HP, then add MP to regain the lost HP,
>are'nt you still putting the same stress on the engine?
>I have been running the gami's for about 8 months now

Engine stress is not solely a matter of HP generated.

The reason you are NOT putting the same stresses on the engine is because
in the LOP regime, cylinder peak pressures are less (for the same HP
generated). CHT is also less.

The reason cylinder peak pressures are less is because the rate of burn of
the fuel charge is slower.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Mike Rapoport]

When you say "kill the eingine" do you mean have it stop running or break
it?

Mike
MU-2


"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> because I dont want to kill the engine.
> when you lean that much and dont get any engine roughness, my common
> sense (and knowing my airplane) tells me thats more then plenty.
>
> I was leaning by tempeture today and 12 gph was right at 100 degrees ROP
>
>
>
> Dan Luke wrote:
>
> > "Jeff" wrote:
> > > I have leaned it to 8 gph and the engine was still running fine,
> > > but that just seems to much.
> >
> > Why?
> > --
> > Dan
> > C172RG at BFM
>

[Mike Rapoport]

What kind of stress are you talking about? Engines experience themal stress
and mechanical stress. Both are lower when running the same power LOP.

Mike
MU-2


"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> see this is what confuses me, if you run LOP, lose some HP, then add MP to
regain the lost HP,
> are'nt you still putting the same stress on the engine?
> I have been running the gami's for about 8 months now.
>
> Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, 100° ROP *is* in a safe area so far as CHT is concerned. But
you'd
> > still reduce your peak cylinder pressures by 7-8% by running the same HP
at
> > 50° LOP. This will result in less stresses on your engine.
> >
> > And your BSFC will be improved, also, leading to decreased fuel
consumption
> > for the same HP generated.
> >
> > Perhaps as you gain more experience with the GAMI's, you'll feel more
> > comfortable running LOP. I don't believe that running 50° LOP EGT with
a
> > smooth engine puts you in any risk of getting so lean that the engine
might
> > stop.
> >
> > However, even if you choose to keep things ROP, you'll still show some
> > improvement in fuel consumption due to the more balanced fuel flows.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>

[Skyking]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message >...
> I am looking at buying one of two planes: a 1978 Mooney M20J or a 1965
> Piper Commanche PA-24-260.
> (3) I heard Mooney is teetering on bankruptcy. Is this a real big
> downside?

So what? Piper has already been there. Take the Mooney, it is newer,faster
and more efficient.

[Tom S.]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> see this is what confuses me, if you run LOP, lose some HP, then add MP to
regain the lost HP,
> are'nt you still putting the same stress on the engine?
> I have been running the gami's for about 8 months now.
>

Don't confuse cylinder pressures (also addressed in Deakin's articles) with
the stress of HEAT, particularly in CHT.

[Paul Sengupta]

Pirep:

Went flying yesterday and tried LOP again in my Bulldog
(Lycoming IO-360, standard FIs). Seemed to work ok.
Needed a fair bit higher MP to maintain the speed, but the
CHT (only one) was much lower than "normal". However
one thing I found was that the fuel burn for the same speed
didn't seem any lower, and was possibly a bit higher than
what I normally fly. I fly on pretty low power anyway usually
so I lean until the power starts reducing then bring it back a
shade. Probably the max-power setting, though only at about
50% power or so.

Paul

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 18:34:09 -0000, "Paul Sengupta"
> wrote:

>Pirep:
>
>Went flying yesterday and tried LOP again in my Bulldog
>(Lycoming IO-360, standard FIs). Seemed to work ok.
>Needed a fair bit higher MP to maintain the speed, but the
>CHT (only one) was much lower than "normal". However
>one thing I found was that the fuel burn for the same speed
>didn't seem any lower, and was possibly a bit higher than
>what I normally fly. I fly on pretty low power anyway usually
>so I lean until the power starts reducing then bring it back a
>shade. Probably the max-power setting, though only at about
>50% power or so.
>
>Paul
>

I, too, have a Lycoming IO360 with standard FI's.

If I lean relatively slowly, I find that my airspeed doesn't drop off until
I am 25-50° LOP. If I then enrichen a bit, I'm still LOP.

If I lean very, very slowly, I will see the airspeed drop off sooner.

Could it be that your "normal" procedure leads to LOP settings?



Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Paul Sengupta]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> I, too, have a Lycoming IO360 with standard FI's.
>
> If I lean relatively slowly, I find that my airspeed doesn't drop off
until
> I am 25-50° LOP. If I then enrichen a bit, I'm still LOP.
>
> If I lean very, very slowly, I will see the airspeed drop off sooner.
>
> Could it be that your "normal" procedure leads to LOP settings?

Ah, interesting Ron. Since I don't have any EGT sensors and
only one CHT, this may well be the case. By leaning more I
managed to bring the CHT down, I don't know if that means
anything. The "normal" CHT is still down from a full power full
rich climb (I'd expect it would be!).

If I am going somewhere I use more power, maybe 65-75%
but I use a higher fuel flow by flying richer comparatively than
I do when I'm pottering around. The CHT in this case seems to
be exactly the same.

I will have to try leaning to LOP on higher power, but since I don't
have an analyser to see what's going on I'm a bit reluctant. I take the
view that at less than 65% power I can't screw it up whatever I do
with leaning.

Paul

[David Megginson]

Paul Sengupta wrote:

> I will have to try leaning to LOP on higher power, but since I don't
> have an analyser to see what's going on I'm a bit reluctant. I take the
> view that at less than 65% power I can't screw it up whatever I do
> with leaning.

Note that running a little rich at 75% power will be far, far worse than
running a little lean -- you'll have to be running *very* rich to have any
safety margin, since the hottest CHTs come on the rich side.


All the best,


David

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:17:38 -0000, "Paul Sengupta"
> wrote:

>I will have to try leaning to LOP on higher power, but since I don't
>have an analyser to see what's going on I'm a bit reluctant. I take the
>view that at less than 65% power I can't screw it up whatever I do
>with leaning.

Paul,

Since you don't have EGT sensors, based on my experience with
multi-cylinder sensors and several Lyc IO360 engines, I am virtually
certain that you are running LOP with your method, unless your injectors
are way off.

But there are only a few points that can give you a clue.

In my experience with this engine, when I get to about 50° LOP, my IAS will
have dropped 8 knots or so (and CHT's will also come down after a while).
At peak IAS for the power setting, you will be comfortably ROP, and not in
the 25°-50° ROP "danger zone".

On my engines, if I lean slowly to roughness, and then enrichen just a bit
(as Lycoming recommends!), I will be well LOP.

HTH,

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[CriticalMass]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> I like ROP for the
> power...

Then why did you buy the Gamis?

> ...and because gas is cheaper then cylinders.

The setting you use, peak power, is the worst of all for cylinder stress
and produces the very highest CHTs.
--

That's what I was thinking, Dan.

My understanding of "everything else" and GAMIjectors is that you run normal
stuff 50-100 degrees, well rich, of peak, to avoid excess heat and
detonation, or you do "the big pull" on the mixture, as the GAMI-types call
it, to get the mixture quickly past the danger zone around peak EGT, then
run GAMIs LOP and get the benefits of cooler temps and fuel economy at
little loss of performance or efficiency.

"A tiny bit ROP" scares the hell out of me, especially now that my Comanche
260 is having a fresh Mattituck overhaul installed. I'll surely not run it
like that.

[Dan Luke]

"CriticalMass" wrote:
> "A tiny bit ROP" scares the hell out of me, especially now that my
> Comanche 260 is having a fresh Mattituck overhaul installed. I'll
> surely not run it like that.

What's your plan for break-in?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Tom S.]

But, as he said, "gas is cheaper than cylinders"...until you have to replace them :~)
"CriticalMass" > wrote in message ...

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message ...
> I like ROP for the
> power...

Then why did you buy the Gamis?

> ...and because gas is cheaper then cylinders.

The setting you use, peak power, is the worst of all for cylinder stress
and produces the very highest CHTs.

[CriticalMass]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...

What's your plan for break-in?
--

Basically, I plan to cruise around 100-125 degrees ROP at around 75 percent
power, never baby it, always keeping a eye on the GEM.

My IA tells me Mattituck provided some guidelines with the engine when it
came back, and I haven't had the opportunity to review those yet. But the
main things are to keep the power up, temps down (or at least, normal), and
keep the mineral oil in there till consumption stabilizes or after.

[Tom S.]

I should have said "especially when you have to replace them".
"Tom S." > wrote in message ...
But, as he said, "gas is cheaper than cylinders"...until you have to replace them :~)
"CriticalMass" > wrote in message ...

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message ...
> I like ROP for the
> power...

Then why did you buy the Gamis?

> ...and because gas is cheaper then cylinders.

The setting you use, peak power, is the worst of all for cylinder stress
and produces the very highest CHTs.

[Tom S.]

I wonder what that would look like on George Braly's test bed analyzers.
"CriticalMass" > wrote in message ...

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message ...

What's your plan for break-in?
--

Basically, I plan to cruise around 100-125 degrees ROP at around 75 percent power, never baby it, always keeping a eye on the GEM.

My IA tells me Mattituck provided some guidelines with the engine when it came back, and I haven't had the opportunity to review those yet. But the main things are to keep the power up, temps down (or at least, normal), and keep the mineral oil in there till consumption stabilizes or after.

[Dan Luke]

"CriticalMass" wrote:
> > What's your plan for break-in?

> But the
> main things are to keep the power up, temps down

That's the ticket. Run it hard, run it cool.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[CriticalMass]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "CriticalMass" wrote:
> > > What's your plan for break-in?
>
> > But the
> > main things are to keep the power up, temps down
>
> That's the ticket. Run it hard, run it cool.

I see you're just north of Dauphin Island. I've been meaning to get over
there and scout around the place for years now and haven't made it, for
various reasons, most of which involve either weather or laziness.

Do you get down there ever? Would it be worthwhile as a sightseeing
daytrip? Is the strip serviceable?

Dave

[[email protected]]

Paul Sengupta > wrote:
: Pirep:

: Went flying yesterday and tried LOP again in my Bulldog
: (Lycoming IO-360, standard FIs). Seemed to work ok.
: Needed a fair bit higher MP to maintain the speed, but the
: CHT (only one) was much lower than "normal". However
: one thing I found was that the fuel burn for the same speed
: didn't seem any lower, and was possibly a bit higher than
: what I normally fly. I fly on pretty low power anyway usually
: so I lean until the power starts reducing then bring it back a
: shade. Probably the max-power setting, though only at about
: 50% power or so.

This makes sense because you were using airspeed to set your
engine power, which is probably the most correct method. Trouble is, the
airframe doesn't care how you make the power
(MP/RPM/Mixture/CHT/EGT/etc)... 75% of 200 hp is 150 hp, and that's what
it takes to go at "cruise speed." Adding an inch or two also make sense
if you were truly running LOP. Take a look at:
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/tcm_mixture_sweep.jpg from the article
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182179-1.html

Although I fly a carb'd O-360, I try to lean as aggressively as
possible. Unfortunately, that generally means right at about peak EGT
before roughness sets in. Lycoming themselves say that if the power is
kept below 75%, that's an acceptable "economy" cruise. I figure that it
should be safe, and I never cruise at 75% anyway... usually 65% for a
safety margin. BTW, it flies *exactly* by the book at those settings.
Cruise speed, fuel burn, etc... Almost perfect 8.5 gal/hour at 65%.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Dan Luke]

"CriticalMass" wrote:
> I see you're just north of Dauphin Island.
> Do you get down there ever?

I do a t-'n'-g there once in a while. Flying up and down the beaches is
fun.

> Would it be worthwhile as a sightseeing
> daytrip?

Yes, but the beaches are better over on the east side of the pass at
Gulf Shores/Orange Beach.

> Is the strip serviceable?

Yep. Don't know if there's a courtesy car, fuel, etc.
There's a dandy little seafood restaurant on that side of the bay, a
few miles north of Dauphin Island.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM