Just curious as to everyone's opinion on fuel injection engines vs carb. I have been looking at a really nice Mooney M20C. I am just wondering if I should wait to find an E model which is fuel injected. Opinions?
Just curious as to everyone's opinion on fuel injection engines vs carb. I have been looking at a really nice Mooney M20C. I am just wondering if I should wait to find an E model which is fuel injected. Opinions?
Just curious as to everyone's opinion on fuel injection engines vs carb. I have been looking at a really nice Mooney M20C. I am just wondering if I should wait to find an E model which is fuel injected. Opinions?
I'd prefer injected simply because it is a better technology.
Not that there's anything wrong with carbs, though!
Now Henning, tell us how simple it is to convert a certified aircraft to experimental?.
Now Henning, tell us how simple it is to convert a certified aircraft to experimental? The answer, for those curious, is that it's easier to understand tax code.
An IO-470 engine is going to fit in a Mooney cowl? Could be interesting to see. I also believe the FI Lyc 360 engine has the same C/R as most of the carbed models. Don't know why the carb model won't like UL94 unless there's a concern with the float materials.
Simple, you file for a Research Exp certificate to gather the data required in accordance with FAR... In the furtherance of attaining STC issuance. That's the same way there is a Twin Commander flying around on a pair of big block Chevys for the last 20 years. You just have to put up with the restrictions which are much like any other Exp restrictions in that they diminish with time flown.
In that particular airframe, it means the difference of 20HP and about 8-10 knots of speed. In this case, I'd wait for the E model if all other things are equal. Some planes there is little difference.
I have been looking at a really nice Mooney M20C. Opinions?
Jay Honeck gets 142KTAS in his Pathfinder.
94UL is not an issue of fuel injection. 94UL is an issue with the higher compression FI allowed. Remember, we're only talking 9.5:1 at the maximum, many more at 8.5:1. We run run 87 octane in cars with any of those, heck, I've run it with 10.25:1. The thing is timing and the low RPM restriction. In a car you shift down and pick up RPM keeping you out of detonation. Personally if I do a gear reduction I'll do it through a Lenco.
This seems not quite right to me.
A Cherokee 140 with 150 hp gets 105 knots and add 85 hp to Cherokee 235 and top speed is 130 knots so if 85 hp gives you 25 knots 20 hp might give 5.
Where is my logic wrong??
I got a good bit in injected and carbed.....and hot start issues with injection.
Jay Honeck gets 142KTAS in his Pathfinder.
Is that the Cherokee 235 with the new wing and extend back seat?
Knock control with a vibration detector and electronic ignition retard is now common in autos. Air cooled engines present a somewhat more challenging path but that is what I would approach if I were to do the redesign. Of course, this is well past the question of the OP, but it wouldn't be that much trouble to find a detector that could work on an air cooled engine, and an ignition map to suit the fuel avail.
An 8.5 C/R engine with better flowing heads can run fine on 94 octane with the proper controls. It's the fixed advance spark that is killing the whole program. Retarding the fixed timing is not the answer either as that will take away continuous power.
The real fly in the ointment is 'guaranteed T/O power'. It could be different under load with 100LL or 94 if the controller sensed a series of pings and retarded the timing at a critical time.
You pretty much have to be a corp. trying to gain certification to get that approved.Simple, you file for a Research Exp certificate to gather the data required in accordance with FAR... In the furtherance of attaining STC issuance. That's the same way there is a Twin Commander flying around on a pair of big block Chevys for the last 20 years. You just have to put up with the restrictions which are much like any other Exp restrictions in that they diminish with time flown.
If you think that sounds simple, you're in the minority. You have to actually have a path to STC, and then there's whether or not they'd go for it. The Orenda engines in the Commander are definitely a special case. I don't know if that plane is flying or not. It does say it has a valid airworthiness certificate in experimental. But according to FlightAware, the last flight was 14 years ago. Also, a picture of it on FlightAware from 2 years ago shows it parked with no engines installed.
Now, let's say the Southwest ACO was alright with that. They're known for being easier in that regard than other ACOs, and there's a big difference between having a major STC program and just an individual who says "I want a bigger engine in my Mooney."
We'll ignore the fact that they're not too keen on increasing power in certified aircraft these days.
It sure is, I see it at airshows all the time, last time I saw it was at AOPA Summit. I talked to the guy about it, it's not that difficult, just fill out the paperwork properly, he's been flying it with just the minimal Non Commercial restrictions for over a decade.
Ask Mooney, they spec them that way. M20C = 150kts, M20E = 160kts. I just report, not design or explain.
Pathfinder is a PA-28-235 with the old wing and longer cabin.