Al,

Wow! Since I haven't the slightest idea why that would matter, you
need to explain to me why this should be done in this, a very
unscientific and casual comparison.

I did go back and check the data, the trip was 544NM. So I guess I'll
restate that I was throttled waaaaaay back so as not to run ahead of
the Mooney, he was firewall forward to keep up with me and on both
legs I burned about 10 gallons less than he. He has the 200 hp engine
and I the 250 hp engine. Extrapolating the memory, it took me about
$25 less in fuel to make each trip than it did he. I probably could
have used the same fuel and arrived about an hour before, so the
potential owner needs to check his mission profile before making any
decision. But for $45K, I would look hard at that Mooney.

Al,

strange thing if it was a M20E "flat out", "firewall forward" and with a
"newly o/h'd engine". It should do about 150 TAS on ~23" and 2500 RPM on
altitude and on a cruise setting, burning about 10.5 GpH. Sounds odd to me
that you have to go "throttled waaaaay back" to let him keep up with you in
your old Bo'.

Obviously he was running with a less-than-ideal setting and burning much to
much fuel, say: he has not pulled the mixture (re knob) to a setting giving
something inbetween of max RPM or min SFC. Mooney's are know for their
efficiency and this reputation is not based on a single event. ;-)

Best Regards

Kai

P.S.: If you really are in the topic of measuring aircraft efficiency I
would recommend using the "CAFE 400" equation to compare aircraft (look
under http://www.cafefoundation.org/challenge.htm for more details)

Speed^1.3 x Miles Per Gallon x Payload^0.6

Use a efficient yet safe (material and you) setting during your tests,
consider running LOP (cause it's about efficiency) I'm looking forward
hearing from your results... ;-)