cnoe

My record fill-up was 53.8 gallons in 64 usable tanks. Even with 10.2 gallons remaining I wasn't exactly comfortable.

Now THAT doesn't sound pleasant. Like StinkBug said above I'd rather have one "empty" tank than two "nearly empty" tanks. I follow my POH and keep a minimum of 8 gallons in each. And as Bob said, banking in the pattern concerns me too when low on fuel. If you're going to run a tank dry (either accidentally or on purpose) PLEASE do it with plenty of altitude under your wings.

You are right; I do not mean to encourage anybody to take a risk that makes them uncomfortable. I only intended to point out that IMO purposely running a tank dry in flight presents very low risk compared to many of the things we do while flying these small airplanes through the sky. The list of things that I consider to be more risky include: take-offs, flying over large expanses of forest or rough terrain, landing with a 15 kt crosswind component, executing a missed approach, flying at night, etc. I am not trying to be a smart aleck, and I do realize that not everyone is comfortable with hearing their engine stop making power. But I'd rather do this a few times on purpose under controlled circumstances than unexpectedly encounter it for the first time stumbling through the recovery process. Just like few people enjoy practicing "stalls" (which is also more risky IMO) we're encouraged to go out occasionally and pull back on the yoke 'til our plane drops a wing. Bob has a good point above too; my fuel gauges don't give me much resolution, and my totalizer only tells me what's in the tanks "combined". His suggestion to utilize the fuel pump to drain the tank may be an adequate alternative for anybody uncomfortable with the in-air tank switch but I don't believe that's as accurate of method due to the plane's attitude on the ground. And my Dukes boost pump is not rated for continuous duty so I use it sparingly. I only intend to explain my thought process and procedure. It is not my intention to encourage anybody to do anything they're not comfortable with. I apologize for any other appearances.

The JPI Installation Manual states "Install the OAT probe, P/N 400510 in the airframe manufactures recommended location. If this is not possible, it is recommended that the OAT probe be placed in clean airflow such as in a cabin air scoop or below the underside of the wing away from engine heat or exhaust." On my J the original (I'd suggest recommended) location is under the right wing outboard of the main gear. I too believe the cabin-scoop mounting location skews the temp measurement. The problem is that it's considerably more work and time installing the probe in the wing. If the installation cost was quoted it's unlikely they'll place it in the wing unless it's specified beforehand or you pay extra. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I might suggest that it would be much less detrimental to one's plane running the tank dry in flight rather than on the ground. Even if you landed with only a couple gallons of usable fuel left in a tank it would take a long time ground-running with poor/uneven cooling to run the tank dry. That is not good for your engine. Instead... 1) confirm that your fuel selector is functional, 2) put a few thousand feet between you and the ground, 3) go fly somewhere scenic until the engine starts to miss and sputter, 4) RETARD your throttle position to ~1/4 throttle, 5) switch leisurely to the fuller tank (the prop will continue to spin briskly unless you slow the plane down A LOT). The engine will quickly resume running at the lower power setting so all you have to do now is smoothly advance the throttle and fly home. With that being said I'd advise against doing this with a nervous spouse in the right seat. Other than that it's not that big of deal. Disclaimer: Perform at your own risk. I'm only stating what works for me and is in keeping with the manufacturer's procedures. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Great job "Buttercup"!

Thanks for the lead Yetti. After looking at the McFarlane reamer I'm impressed with the specialized design. It uses a pilot section that is the same size as the valve stem virtually guaranteeing a straight shot down the guide with the 0.5000 section. Looks fool-proof. I'll add aviatorsplus to a few suggestions from SAVVY that I got. I want to hear "yes, we've done this several times and have the specialized tools, it will require x amount of hours, and you're welcome to stand and watch (or help) while we do the work" from the shop. That may be asking a lot but it's the expectation I have when putting my bird in the shop. I've seen too many people drop off a plane for something simple only to come back later to discover unapproved work and expenses.

I looked at McFarlane's site and yes those specially sized reamers look like a great idea. I've got an IO360-A3B6D so the angle-valve wizard fits and the 0.4995"-0.5005 (0.5000) reamer is the right one. PM sent. Thanks.

I was planning to buy a Valve Wizard myself but figured I'd give an area mechanic some work if they were experienced with the procedure and wouldn't spend 2 days on a 3 hour job. I'll very possibly take you up on the tool rental offer and do it myself with supervision. Is your reamer 0.5000? I can PM you to discuss further, likely tomorrow if I don't make other arrangements in the meantime. Thanks! Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Does anybody have first-hand experience with a Texas A&P who's experienced and efficient with the wobble test and/or valve guide reaming on a Lyc IO360. From what I've heard this is a simple process that can be performed on all four exh valves in 2-3 hours, if done by an experienced mechanic. I'm particular about my plane and am not interested in watching somebody else learn how to do it at my expense. I'd rather do it myself in that case. I've got a few leads from Savvy but figured I'd throw out the question here for input. Thanks in advance for any recommendations.

That's awesome news Paul! Congrats! I know what Darby's getting for Christmas. http://4pawsaviation.com/products/oxygen-hoods.php Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I apologize for reviving this thread but I had to express the extreme disappointment I have with my gas-hog M20J. I just ran the numbers for my loaded-to-the-gills multiple-stop 2,078 nm round-trip to Oshkosh and I missed tying that diesel-burning C182's WORLD RECORD by only 0.34 nm/gallon! Nevermind that I made a couple of stops along the way, and ALSO managed to throw in an 80 mile leg running well-ROP in formation with the Caravan. Maybe someday I'll own a truly efficient plane like that 182. Sigh. In the meantime I'll just have to live with the lousy 16.98 sm/gallon at 172 mph performance of my lowly Mooney.

I'm fairly certain that on my J the "tip" of the tab is the 25 gallon level. Filling to the hole gives you some quantity (?) more than 25. In fact if you take a flashlight and look closely at the tab you'll see a "down arrow" stamped on the tab itself which points to the tip and not the hole. I've run my tanks dry in flight (on purpose) and refilled 2 gallons at a time making a custom (and quite accurate) fuel-level stick which also shows 25 gallons at the tip of the tabs. Sometimes "just filling them up" isn't such a great idea, like when I departed Durango last Monday morning at 10 am. Density altitude was already 9,500' and with "variable winds" I needed quite a bit of runway to get off the ground and on my way. Just sayin'...

A fairly hefty offer was already made and refused from what I've heard. Tyson and the gang have a lot of pride that they've dominated the market from day one, and none of them are going hungry. I'd gladly bet that five years from now Foreflight is still independent. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Bugged out Wednesday after a GREAT time camping with the Caravan. After sleeping in my own bed for 2 nights Susan, Eli, and I are jumping in the plane this morning for a quick trip to Colorado to celebrate our 31st anniversary. Looking forward to the 50 degree nights and low humidity. Sorry I missed all the late arrivals but had a great time meeting everybody on Monday night. Chuck (Bubbles) Noe Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Any photos? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk You mean "evidence"? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Morning breaks on the North 40. Time to rise and shine! Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think you're correct in differentiating between it being a controlled field versus an uncontrolled field. If you're handed off from Approach (or SOCAL in your case) to a tower then you'd obviously carry your code all the way to landing. I just didn't realize you could then take-off after a full-stop landing without going back to 1200 (unless you were instructed to do so by the tower). But I have very little knowledge about the topic. I'm just curious. My home base is uncontrolled though it's just outside the Houston Class Bravo. So if you're heading anywhere except SW on departure it's best to call Houston Approach for FF (and often vectoring). Then when I'm returning to base they always kick you back to squawking VFR as soon as you report the field in sight. We have daily regional jet service as well as the typical business jet traffic (7,000' runway) so it does require some discipline to blend in smoothly with the various aircraft (and no tower).

That's interesting and may fall into the category of "a tip" (keeping the code active if simply landing and taking back off). When landing at my uncontrolled field Approach always kicks us back to 1200 when we report field in sight, but a couple of times after an IFR landing I've departed later VFR squawking something other than 1200. Oops![emoji846] Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sounds like a great flight Richard! Congrats! My only question is this... When you called for FF upon departure from Ramona you said that SOCAL asked you to keep the same squawk and ident. Were you carrying 1200 or did you carry the previous squawk all the way to the ground at Ramona? I would typically depart on a VFR flight carrying 1200 unless instructed to keep the code on the ground. I'm not saying you messed up, but I'm curious how all that went down as I'm still learning something new every flight. And don't sweat the small mistakes (like radio goof-ups). Learn from them, and try to be perfect, but accept the fact that you'll likely never make a "perfect" flight. I sure haven't yet.

My J's Mooney Service Manual specifies a MIL-L-3545 (High Temperature) grease for the wheel bearings which is satisfied by the use of AeroShell 5. Aeroshell 6 on the other hand is an appropriate airframe grease in some applications. While AeroShell 22 appears to be an excellent wheel bearing grease it's not what's specified for my J. I doubt anyone would care if you used it though. Here are the specs for AS-5 directly from Shell: AeroShell Grease 5 is particularly effective for use as a wheel bearing grease, especially when landing speeds are high, and is suitable for the lubrication of aircraft and engine accessories operating at high speeds and at relatively high temperatures, e.g. magnetos, generators and starters. For the lubrication of rolling bearings which are required to start at temperatures as low as –23°C an adequate period should be allowed for the grease to channel. SPECIFICATIONS PROPERTIES MIL-G-3545C TYPICAL Oil type - Mineral Thickener type - Microgel Base oil viscosity mm²/s @ 40°C - 500 to 525 @ 100°C - 32 Useful operating temperature range °C - –23°C to +177 Drop point °C 177 min 260+ Worked penetration @ 25°C 250 to 300 284 Unworked penetration @ 25°C - 281 Bomb oxidation pressure drop @ 99°C 100 hrs lb/in² 10 max 6 500 hrs lb/in² 25 max 15 Oil separation @ 100°C, in 30 hrs %m 5 max 0.5 Water resistance test loss @ 41°C %m 20 max 0.5 Evaporation loss in 22 hrs @ 149°C %m - 1.0 Mean Hertz Load kg - 37 Copper corrosion 24 hrs @ 100°C Must pass Passes Bearing protection 2 days @ 51°C Must pass Passes Anti-friction bearing performance @ 149°C hrs - 600+ Colour - Amber AEROSHELL GREASE 5 U.S. Meets MIL-G-3545C (Obsolete)

Good job! Like Hank said, stay sharp and you'll do fine on the 9th. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Though there's no way to verify it, the manufacturers "claim" that these aircraft bearings are held to much stricter tolerances than generic or automotive bearings. They are certainly correct in stating that landing gear bearings (that accelerate from 0 to ~2,000 rpm almost instantaneously, also with a shock load) endure a MUCH different environment than a car (which starts and stops MUCH more gradually). In this application I'll spring for the better bearing until somebody can prove there's no difference. It's not quite the same as something non-critical like light bulbs and sheet-metal screws. If somebody has better info please let us know.

Guess I ain't brain-dead yet after all. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'll bite... "TO"? Not the 6 time NFL pro-bowler? Sucks when the mind starts to go.[emoji51] Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk