cnoe

Supporter
  • Content count

    1,340
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

cnoe last won the day on December 17 2016

cnoe had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,081 Excellent

2 Followers

About cnoe

  • Rank
    Won't Leave!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Houston, Texas
  • Model
    M20J

Recent Profile Visitors

1,743 profile views
  1. You can get an Uber to take you from Memphis Intl to Kennett. It cost me $115 in December (plus tip if you’re so inclined). It’s courteous to give your responding driver a quick call to confirm they have the time for a long trip. Many prefer a long fare. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  2. I don’t think that’s uncommon Byron. I see numbers like that on the ground and climb-out sometimes depending on configuration. In cruise it always drops to 0-2. If I saw 100 I’d be watching it closely and at 200 I’d be looking to land promptly. These numbers aren’t out of line with various industrial exposure limits. OSHA has a 50ppm 8-hour limit and NIOSH has a ceiling of 200. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  3. Garmin GFC500 for M20

    Many of us were sweating bullets that the GFC500 wouldn't be STC'd for the M20 so the news is certainly good. It's also a good sign that the GFC600 list makes no mention of Mooneys. The poor Bonanza 36 guys are getting stuck with the more expensive 600. They also state that anything with a G1000 doesn't qualify for the 500 OR 600. I wouldn't be surprised if that remains the case. The GFC600 supported-aircraft list is as follows (from Garmin): Aircraft Models Currently Approved for GFC 600 Installation: Beechcraft Baron Models: B55, B55A Beechcraft Bonanza Models: 36, A36, A36TC Cessna 182 Models: P, Q, R, S, T, T182, T182T GFC 600 Certification Programs Currently In-progress: (Subject to change.) Beechcraft Baron Models: 58, 58TC, 58P (excluding 1984 and 1985 model year 58P) Cessna 340 Models: 340, 340A GFC 600 Certification Programs Planned to Begin in the Next 12-months: (Not currently under development and subject to change.) Cessna 414 Model: 414A Cessna 421 Model: 421C Cessna Grand Caravan Model: 208B Piper PA-46 Models: 310P, 350P* Socata TBM Models: 700, A, B, C1, C2, N (TBM 850) Please note that G1000® equipped aircraft are excluded from the list above.
  4. Thank you again Dan! Your experience (and your willingness to share it) has undoubtedly made flying a safer proposition for many many pilots. I purchased a Sensorcon immediately after your accident, well before the “discount” was negotiated. And I use it on every flight. I wonder if Sensorcon would divulge exactly how many have taken advantage of the offer; that would be cool to know. Cnoe Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  5. The engine overhaul

    With all due respect I don't believe it can be fully explained by that. I too have been reading about this subject for FOUR YEARS and the condition you describe may indeed be a major contributing factor but falls under the category of poor metallurgy. There is heat-treatment that penetrates well below the surfaces of the cam and tappets, and then there is the surface treatment. If the depth of the hardening isn't deep enough (or hard enough) it's like driving a truck over an asphalt road which causes the substrate to give a little. This can indeed cause surface cracks but isn't necessarily due to "impact" or "sticking valves"; it's due to improperly hardened base material. But don't rule out minor corrosion (flash rust) as a problem as well. There's a reason why trainers have a lower incidence of cam/tappet spalling and it's directly related to the time between flights. Planes that sit for many days between flights simply don't fare as well and it's likely due to surface degradation and subsequent startups. For this problem anti-corrosive additives and engine dehydrators may provide some relief. It should also be noted that Continentals have a significantly lower incidence of cam/lifter spalling (as their cams sit low in the crankcase where lubrication is plentiful unlike the Lycomings). The real cause is very possibly a combination of factors for some, and a single issue for others. FWIW, the camshaft pic Byron posted in this thread showed both the "intake" lobes as being affected but not the exhaust lobes. This make sense since those lobes see double-duty with the opposing intake lifters. I believe there is some hope with the new tool-steel/DLC-coated lifters. Also, my engine shop highly recommends Camguard but it's certainly no cure-all. Still it's pretty cheap insurance compared to the cost of splitting a case. These are just my observations. YMMV.
  6. The engine overhaul

    Without a (pressurized) pre-oiler this doesn’t solve the problem. Even Centrilube (the STC holder) says it’ll take up to 15 seconds at cold startup to get oil through the cam and onto the lobes. Some of our engines have nozzles (when Lycoming doesn’t forget to install them) that spray the piston skirts (and maybe the cam) as oil pressure comes up. You can also add them as an STC (see http://www.chuckneyent.com/neynozzle.asp ) if you like. Neither of these mods solves the issue of flash rust on a cam at startup. IMO, without a pre-oiler they’re both a waste of money. I agree with Byron, Mike, Clarence (and others) that poor metallurgy is a significant contributing factor. Anecdotal evidence of Lycoming's new DLC-coated tool-steel tappets looks favorable; time will tell. In the meantime I’ll fly frequently, use camguard, preheat when it’s cold, startup at 1000-1200 rpm, and use an engine dehydrator when possible. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  7. The engine overhaul

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  8. Looking to Buy Mooney M20F or J

    A friend just emailed me about this. The auction is at https://gsaauctions.gov/gsaauctions/aucitdsc/?sl=51QSCI18902001 It's definitely a fixer-upper and the current bid is $41,000.
  9. I just stumbled upon this thread. My J has never exhibited any significant vibration in the landing phase and I give the prop speed zero thought. I’m much more concerned about dodging North Korean missiles on final than worrying about some transient rpm restriction. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  10. Engine out glide distance

    For sure install the JPI first. When you get a certified GPS just make sure they connect it to the JPI. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  11. Family pressures?

    Sorry to hear that. We used to visit family (450 nm away) once a year (Christmas); maybe twice. Since purchasing our Mooney 5 years ago we’ve logged more than 20 trips to see them. Then again maybe they don’t care to see you that often.[emoji846] GA is the safest it’s been in 50 years, but still has risks. Fly safe and send them articles like this? https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2017/11/22/472074.htm Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  12. Engine out glide distance

    No apology necessary. JPI provides software to analyze your monitor's data but it's quite atrocious. Alternatively you can upload it to SavvyAnalysis' website and customize your own graphs quite easily. It's free to do this. Many of us (myself included) subscribe to their service where all my data is monitored on a continual basis for such things as pending exhaust-valve failure and they'll notify you promptly in such an instance. You can also query them for further analysis anytime you suspect an anomaly in your data. They also provide a quarterly (?) report card comparing your plane's parameters to the fleet (there are currently 176 M20J/F models in their database). This is great information. Lastly, we also have a great resource on Mooneyspace who is an analyst for Savvy by the name of Paul Kortopates (name corrected now). I didn't intend this to be an advertisement for Savvy but I'm sold on their services. cnoe P.S. If you tie your 830 into a GPS source it greatly enhances the available data. I highly recommend doing that.
  13. Engine out glide distance

    I’m not suggesting that anybody do anything risky here. It’s as simple as (on a calm day) setting up a 5 nm straight-in final at 3,000' AGL and pulling the throttle to idle and the prop knob out. Keep your configuration “clean” and pitch for 88kts/100m ias. If your glide ratio is truly 11:1 you’ll cross the threshold at ~250'. If you cross at ~850' then your glide ratio is closer to 14:1. Either drop the gear and land or go around. It may be counterintuitive but IMO it is less safe to fly with one’s Glide Distance Ring set up inaccurately, thereby significantly limiting your options in an engine-out. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  14. Engine out glide distance

    Happy Thanksgiving everyone! The last thing I want to do is come across as a know-it-all (because I’m not) but I want everybody to consider making a brief flight or two to determine their “actual” glide ratios. Consider that at an altitude of only 5,000' AGL you would be looking for a landing spot within 9 nm (no wind). If you don’t see an airport on your iPad within that distance you’ll be aiming for the best visible terrain (which may or may not turn out to be hospitable). Meanwhile if my engine stops I’ll see a glide-ring with a diameter that’s FIVE MILES larger than yours. Now I have 415 square nm in which to find an airport (or other landing site) while you are limiting yourself to only 254 square nm. That’s 39% less available landing area. All I’m saying is that in my M20J the published glide ratio is excessively conservative. With today’s incredible technology (iPad w/glide ring) and a simple 30 minute test flight I’ve increased my engine-out landing options by 63%! That’s one of the best safety return-on-investment I could imagine. cnoe Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  15. Engine out glide distance

    You do have some good points. Pulling the prop back makes a BIG difference IMO. You can see this in most any landing approach by getting stabilized then pulling the prop back to the stop. I also agree that if your prop is "stopped" you'd gain even more, but from all accounts you have to slow to near-stall-speed to get the prop to stop in the J. Unless you were really high I'd be hesitant to waste all that energy just to get the prop to stop windmilling. I WOULD like to know how much difference it actually makes and may do that someday; if I do I'll report my findings back here. The "throttle position" brings up some interesting questions as well. Once the prop starts "pushing" the engine, manifold pressure increases dramatically. My biggest concern would be the consequences of my engine coming to life at WOT while preparing for an engine-out landing. It should be a non-issue if handled quickly but it could also prove startling in a critical phase of flight. For everyone's viewing pleasure I'm attaching 2 pics of my JPI data (manifold pressure, RPM, and EGTs) for a "simulated" engine-out (idle speed only = ~860 rpm) vs. a "true" engine-out (ICO position = ~663 rpm). The RPM difference between those 2 scenarios is approximately 200 RPM in my plane. Note: The JPI quickly shuts down once the engine quits making significant power which truncates the graphs somewhat. As stated before, in my plane 14:1 or 2.3 nm/1,000' is a conservative glide expectation either power-off or idling. For me these are good numbers. Your mileage may vary. cnoe