mikerocosm

Below 9000', I run throttle wide open, lean to just-above-rough, and slow the prop to 1950 (how I wish that red band between 2100 and 2350 wasn't there!). I give up a couple of mph, but burn 7-8 gph, and still go almost 140 mph indicated, and it's a whole lot quieter. Above 9000', higher revs seem to be required. (And yes, I have a JPI EDM-700, and CHTs remain in the 290-330 range, depending on season.) Good luck finding your sweet spots! mws out

The guy who provided my Mooney transition training used the Clarity Aloft, and really liked them. Cheapskate that I am, and in response to the overwhelming recommendations of Halo owners, I bought Halos and absolutely love them. (It's worth noting that the other time I've seen earpieces like the ones on the Halos was at the audiologist's office when getting my ears tested. They fit very well, and seal out extraneous sounds quite effectively.) My wife is also very happy with my barely used Zulus, (My panel has audio input that I rarely use, and she makes most of the phone calls anyway, so no Bluetooth issue, but if there were, I'd go for the BluLink.) Occasionally, however, I find myself exiting the Mooney with the headset still on . . .

Before this thread devolves into a discussion of whether or not the EGT gauge is a required instrument . . . As the person who suggested that the EGT was a required instrument, I apologize for my error. I spoke too quickly. It is the CHT gauge that is required, and it is not replaced by the EDM-700, but augmented by it. Still, the hole for the original equipment EGT gauge is (or was, on my panel) too small to accommodate any standard 2-1/4" gauge without enlargement, including the EDM-700.

The EDM-700 includes a readout of bus voltage, and as I recall, I set an alarm on it to let me know if it dips under 13.9V, so I feel covered.

Although this thread seems to have died suddenly, I'm jumping in anyway, because I was in the middle of a panel re-do when it started, and now I'm (almost) done. Previously, my panel was stock '66 E-model, with hacks and chops to accomodate the odd update, and looked like these: After just a few days at KRT Aviation, a new shop on the field at KRVS in Tulsa, Keith Thomas and his crew had my new arrangement finished, complete with the addition of my shiny new CYA-100 Angle of Attack Indicator (Thanks, Rip!), and it now looks like this: It's still a little rough, and I need to make new labels for everything, but it's a huge improvement, and sets up nicely for instrument training. The large-ish blank area on the CoPilot side is for my iPad, as soon as I settle on a mounting option. The post lights were replaced with Nu-Lites. A night flight back from Dallas last weekend showed everything to work just beautifully. KRT Aviation did a very nice job of it, very quickly, and at a price that so stunned me when I heard their quote that I jumped without hesitation. I will be a regular visitor to their shop, I'm sure. mws out

I'm sure the Sennheisers are great. My old ones were (one of the first models of the noise-cancelling series: the noise-cancelling part rarely got turned on, though, because that part required the use of either a ten-cell battery-pack or a plug-in to the cigarette lighter that would blow the fuse . . . not a criticism of Sennheiser, just an indication of how comparatively primitive they were). And they were comfortable, too. But when Sennheiser wouldn't fix them anymore, I bought a pair of Zulus and really loved them, but then gave them to my wife to wear, as she has more use for the Bluetooth, and I like to make her experience as nice as possible, since I'm working uphill to get her in the airplane. Since my transition-training guy had worn Clarity Alofts, and because I'd heard such good things about Halos, I tried a pair of Halos, and I'll probably never go back to anything else. It's hard to describe how nice it is to be able to hear everything so clearly and still hear the engine without being overwhelmed by it, or feeling any need for further noise-cancelling . . . but it's really great. I've had trouble hearing my whole life, but with Halos, I hear everything very clearly. And, I can wear any hat I want!

Here's what i know, which won't answer all your questions, but it's a start: The EDM-700 won't quite fit in the same hole as the stock (at least in my '66E) EGT gauge, as it's a non-standard hole, and a little too small. The engine monitor is not required equipment, but the EGT gauge is, so unless you leave your old EGT gauge in there (as opposed to replacing its function with the [much better] EDM-700), the EDM-700 becomes the required equipment, thus must be approved. That's all I know, relative to your questions, but I will say that an engine monitor will change your life, for the better. mws out

As I understand it, there is no new production of most Brittain parts, but they do have a very active program of reconditioning and installing recycled parts. My PC system was recently made workable by Jerry at Brittain (living near Tulsa has proved to be a really good thing for getting aircraft systems worked on . . .), and now I'm on the list for an Accu-Trak system. They have a long waiting list -- no charge to get a spot on it, no requirement to follow through when you get the call -- so if you're at all interested, give Cecilia Henderson a call at (918) 836-7701 and join the line.

Clearly, I should have been more clear . . . I bought one of the CYA-100 Units heavily discussed in this thread. The manual I've quoted is the one for that unit.

It'll be awhile before I receive my AOA indicator, let alone get it installed, but in the meantime, I read in the installation instructions that it needs to be mounted no further back than 4" from the leading edge of the wing: 2.2.1 Mechanical ... The vane probe must be mounted as far forward under the wing as possible (no more than 4 inches aft of the wing leading edge). My inspection panels are somewhere around 16 inches behind the leading edge, and I originally had it in mind to attach to one of those. Now I'm not so sure. Somewhere in this thread, someone claimed to have mounted it to an inspection panel, but that must have been on a different model of Mooney than mine . . . or maybe not. So, question for the group, or more likely to Rip: What do you think?

I'm assuming that I'm already one of those two, but if not, to be perfectly clear, I'm in.

I'm sure my own stick and rudder skills are still evolving, but my airspeed needle is far from rock solid as I balance the rate of descent against my velocity, with reference to my position and worrying a little about how steep my bank angle is between base and final. I personally allow a hefty speed margin for that last turn, as I'm pretty sure it'd be a short drop into the woods below if my high-performance wing should stall. I imagine that the airspeed indicator would be telling me all I needed to know IF I first knew exactly what the stall speed is on each turn I make on approach with more or less fuel on one side that the other (never the same way twice), different (each time I fly) weight distributed differently longitudinally through the aircraft, wind coming from God-knows-what angle and velocity and changing with altitude, bank angle changing constantly as I micro-adjust to line up just so, and the yoke moving back and forth in a vain attempt to keep everything steady . . . but it's never quite that clean here in Oklahoma. So in fact, I am never really sure, within five knots, of how close I am to a stall. BUT, with an AOA-measuring device, I don't need to know any of that stuff to know how close I am to being in trouble. It's only measuring one thing, and the thing it's measuring tells me how close I am to a stall in simple analog terms. For this reason, the AOA-indicator is the next thing I intend to add to my airplane. First, it was the shoulder harnesses, second it was the JPI 700. (If I were doing it again, I would have added the AOA indicator before the JPI, since it's a safety thing, and the JPI just helps me run things more efficiently and knowledegably.) So if there's going to be a group deal (Lord knows I'm cheap . . .), count me in.

RE: "The 1st thing to determine is if the instrument mounting angle is going to change. You will also have to determine what you are going to do about lighting the new panel." . . . Panel is bent across the middle exactly like the one currently installed (so no change), and I'm thinking Nulites. mws out

I recently bought a replacement panel for the pilot side of my '66 "E" that has nine nicely arranged 3+" holes, the idea being that I'd like to replace my original haphazard instrument layout with a more orderly arrangement. There are currently seven 3+" instruments on the pilot side, and I figure I'll move the odd-man-over-there second VOR/glideslope indicator from the other side, and have a spare hole for something (later?). My question is this: How likely is it that I won't have to cut and reinstall a lot of wire when I do this? Might I reasonably expect to just move stuff around, or am I likely to have to restring copious amounts of wire in order to get this done? I figure I'll find out eventually what it's going to take, but since I'm sort of iced in right now and just thinking about it, I'd sort of like to know what I might expect, and figure I'm not the first guy on this forum to do something like this, and that I might benefit from your collective experience . . . Whaddya think? Mike

This could be your lucky day. These are on eBay right now: http://www.ebay.com/itm/111231606659?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649 Mike

To the very sage advice on watching Mike Busch's webinars suggested above by PTK, I would add: http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182179-1.html?redirected=1 http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182176-1.html?redirected=1 http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182583-1.html?redirected=1 http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/183094-1.html?redirected=1 In fact, just scan the articles by John Deakins at http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182146-1.html?redirected=1 for a rich body of literature about running our engines and the many myths that people have believed in the absence of actual data provided by modern instrumentation. Then decide for yourself. Best regards, and best of luck! Mike

IF my overhead vent were stuck and difficult to operate (and in my case, it is actuated by a cable consisting of a semi-stiff wire running through a coiled sheath, like a motorcycle or bicycle brake), I would get some cable lubricant at the local motorcycle shop and apply it. This stuff comes in a green bottle, and consists of graphite suspended in alcohol, and applies using a long hypodermic-like needle that can shoot the suspended graphite into the cable. When the alcohol dries out, things are pretty slick inside there, and formerly recalcitrant cables operate much more smoothly, especially after running them through a few cycles of maximum travel. I say IF, by virtue of I'm not certain that this is an FAA-approved method, and naturally, I wouldn't use it unless I first checked that out, which I would do IF I had that problem. Good luck!

Not really wishing to hijack this thread, but it seems pretty satisfactorily completed, so . . . Let me ask Shadrach where I might find that flap retraction speed set screw? My flaps retract in about a second flat, and it would be great to slow them down to a speed I might actually be able to control. Thanks, Mike

I'm hoping for a full report on the performance of your new ignition, once you've got a little experience with it. Mike

Could you name your price for the left panel? I'm interested. Thanks

I've had my new-to-me 1966 M20E since October, at which time compressions were in the mid 70s all around, and the past several annuals showed the same thing, with a pound or two of wiggle from year to year, but nothing remarkable. The airplane runs great; it's fast, smooth, and cool (low CHTs, normal EGTs shown on the EDM700 installed a few months ago), cylinder 1 running about 20 degrees warmer (CHT) than the rest. So yesterday (during the annual inspection) my A&P/IA guy calls me to say that cylinders 1 & 3 show just over 20 pounds on the compression test (done cold: he figures if it shows good cold, it'll show good warm). Discussion ensues. This morning, he runs the engine to get CHTs over 300, then tests again. This time, cylinder 3 goes to 64 pounds (and stays there even after cooling), but cylinder 1 remains at 22 pounds. I can hear hissing from the releasing presssure in cylinder 1 from the oil-filler tube, which surely indicates leakage past the rings, no? No hissing in the exhaust pipe or intake; so no reason to suspect intake- or exhaust-valve leakage. I can hear just a whisper in the oil-filler tube when cylinder 3 is pressurized, but nothing like cylinder 1, and at 64 pounds, it can wait. So my question is: What could cause such precipitous loss of ring condition that compressions would fall like this in just a few months? I've read and listened to Mike Busch's columns and webinars, and John Deakins and whatever I can find on AvWeb, and I'm not panicked about the actual compressions, but about what has caused the loss in compression. I'm a believer in getting a solid diagnosis before surgery, but it looks for all the world like sloppy rings, and I just can't figure out how they got that way so quickly. My guy doesn't have a borescope, but I'm not sure what it could show that would make any difference anyway. Any ideas? Mike

I'm pretty sure that ramp checks are the FAA's purview, not Homeland Security's. It's not clear from the article what the DHS guys claimed to be doing, or under what authority, but it wasn't a ramp check. Nor is Oklahoma close enough to a border to warrant a suspension of the fourth amendment for customs' purposes. And while picking nits, I'm pretty sure Mr. Silverstein's hair does not fall into the pot-scented dreadlocks category, but is probably more characteristic of that worn by some Jews honoring the admonition in Leviticus (19:27) to wit: "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard." Jews refer to these as "sidelocks." Under any circumstances, the DHS guys were, in my opinion, way over the line not only in what they demanded, but in the aggressively ignorant way they acted. It's reminiscent of what happened to that glider pilot over the nuclear reactor . . . At least Barney Fife was funny. Standing up for your rights (and everybody else's, by extension) is almost never easy, but always worth it.

If you want more detail than you'll likely need, but crave serious insight into what's happening to your body vis a vis oxygen demand, read this: http://www.avweb.com/news/aeromed/181893-1.html Breathe deeply! mws out

You say "full nose-up trim" . . . Is that what you really mean? I would take that to mean you've got the aircraft primed to leap back into the air on any bounce at all. While I'm always thinking I should dial in more nose-up than I end up with, I almost always have very close to take-off trim by the time I actually put it on the runway. There are many paths, however . . .

These baffles seem to be an inconsistent, but often-used feature. I wonder if they were added at the factory after test-flying and observing what went on with a particular engine-airplane combination (an artifact of the hand-made aircraft . . .)? Under any circumstances, I'm disinclined to remove them without a really good reason to do so. Mike Busch's AvWeb article on engine cooling indicates that monkeying around with the baffling is usually a bad idea, and he's the guru until even better advice comes along. Still, I'd sure like to drop the temps in that one cylinder a little. (One would think that the front two would be the cooler of the set, after all..) Thanks for all the responses! (Lood: my statement, "you can see from the attached photos, there is a small "baffle" in front of cylinder 3" was a typo or brain fart on my part. I should have called that cylinder 2.) Mike out