Thinking about buying a Mooney

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

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:18:38 +0200, "Kai Glaesner"
wrote:

Al,

Well, there was up and back with almost exactly the same results.
Does that count?

No ;-) If instead you would have switched and operated each others plane
with the same engine/mixture management you use in your own: maybe.
Determining the efficency of an airplane needs time and skill if done right.

Best Regards

Kai

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... ;-)

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:24:08 +0200, "Kai Glaesner"
wrote:

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... ;-)


Well we could get scientific about it, then start citing facts such as
top mounted antennas, gap seals, paint and other factors that may
bring in a total 1 kph, but the comparison is real as well as
consistent. If we want to speak about performance we need to keep
everything in perspective and not compare a Mooney to a Bonanza of the
same vintage.

I worship in the House of GAMI. My JPI hymnal is always turned to
page LOP.