cnoe

Question: Should the engine quit, wouldn't it be good practice to pull the Prop knob all the way back? What the consensus on this? Absolutely! It makes a helluva difference in glide.

Great discussion guys, but I might argue that CHT loosely tracks internal cylinder pressure and running stochiometric (peak EGT) is fine at lower power settings (perhaps less than 65%). GAMI agrees with this. When I'm at 10K and making ~55% I see no need in being 30 LOP as CHTs are already in the low 300s. I sometimes go to peak or very close to maximize power at a near optimal economy burn.

I apologize for mis-stating your age; that was my mistake. Seeing now that you're 35 I feel a little better about your youthful exuberance, but still as a pre-solo student this all still seems like a big rush-job. I appreciate your consideration of the pups and your stated safety goals. My bet is that you'll be flying a pressurized twin soon enough, but quite frankly it scares the hell out of many of us to hear of your significant ambitions at such an early phase in your pilot training. Not a single person here wants you to have an accident, and all advice given is solely in concern of your health.

It's interesting to contrast this thread with another from a couple days ago titled "I'm a first time Mooney buyer - help." In the other thread the prospective buyer is an ex-military pilot currently flying airliners. He's leaning towards a 252 though some are steering him towards the J. In this thread we have an early-20s pre-solo student pilot who's leaning towards a Rocket though some are steering him towards the J.[emoji846] I gave my $0.02 on page 1, but that was before I knew the age and point in training the OP was at. I admire youthful exuberance but wisdom comes with age. I wish I could have both, but if I had to choose between the two, as a pilot I'd pick wisdom every time. I wish I had even more. Other than the concern over rising interest rates, what's the rush? It's the journey that truly matters. Enjoy the ride! Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If any of you usual suspects will be in Lakeland next Wednesday or Thursday and could possibly pick up something for me at the show I"d appreciate your letting me know. Send me a PM or feel free to call me at 281-571-3483 for details. Thanks, Chuck

LOL. As I mentioned, it makes me feel lazy but... It's nice to punch the button now and then to see the vertical speed required if I started down "right now". And you can easily target a different fpm without having to break out the tip calculator. Sometimes I descend slowly, if somebody has wonky ears. And sometimes I like to stay high until the last minute because it gets HOT down here in S. Texas. In the previous plane I did the math. Heck, I'll even admit that now and then I use that autopilot thingy rather than fly the plane myself, but please don't tell anybody.

Makes me feel "lazy" but I have to admit using it frequently.

Also, trade-a-plane has a free online appraisal tool by NAAA for subscribers that has very detailed options and avionics sections. A run-through with my plane's specs was certainly in the ballpark. One thing not on there was though was a recent professional tank reseal or bladders. http://naaa.trade-a-plane.com/evaluator/ Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Brad, there are others on MS much more knowledgeable than me about this stuff, but I do study it carefully and read all I can about it. The best you can do is make an educated guess and then test your hypotheses trying not to throw money away in the process. I'm not sure if you have the dual-mag or two singles but ignition lead sets can be quite expensive and they should last a long time unless you have specific damage (like my torn boot, or your chaffed shielding). If the shielding isn't too bad you may want to check your p-leads' shielding first as this should be grounded to the connector at the mag (mine has broken here before). Radio interference can be tough to nail down but that's an easy and inexpensive place to start looking. Regarding your graphs, I wouldn't categorically state that your #1 EGT is higher than the others because of inefficient spark. Sometimes a cylinder will "consistently" be hotter than the others due to probe placement or other reasons. My #4 is always hotter than 1, 2, & 3 when under power. There will be some variation between cylinders as they reach peak etc. but I wouldn't consider your #1 to have a problem based only on it being the hottest. It does appear, though, that the large difference between #1 and the others running LOP shows you with a significant injector balance disparity. Can you state your GAMI spread, or fuel-flow delta between each cylinder at peak? The oft-stated target is 0.5 gph spread but my experience has been that it's still hard to get a smooth running engine at that level (with a 4 cylinder). I'd like to see 0.2-0.3 if possible. I assume you have GAMI injectors installed? Some people are lucky to find they can run LOP with stock injectors; YMMV. But before you start swapping/replacing injectors I'd clean all four in Hoppe's #9 in an ultrasonic cleaner and then run a thorough GAMI test to get a baseline. If you're still way too rich on #1 after that I'd look at getting another #1 injector. Now regarding your LOP test graph I don't see a significant difference between the EGT rises on #1, but it does look like you might have an issue with #2. It's hard to tell without redoing the LOP test with a "both" phase in there (as you stated) but it looks to me like #1 starts higher than the others and increases fairly smoothly. #2 on the other hand appears to make a fairly sharp rise from the lower end to a temp above #1. I'd suspect a weaker spark from #2. It also looks like #4 actually "drops" a little but a minor variance in timing between mags could account for that. Again, all this is simply speculation on my part, but I don't see anything too dramatic. Once you run the test again with the "both" period you should get a better indication. Indeed I can see the danger of over-monitoring but... In my case I'd previously seen my damaged my plug boot but since I couldn't identify a symptom I figured it was not a problem. It's really great to have all the data, though, to actually identify what's going on.

My $0.02... Living on the left coast and routinely flying around and over mountains makes a turbo seem like a good idea. That translates to flying higher, at least into the teens. Pups don't tolerate high altitudes any better than humans, and its tough to keep a nasal cannula or mask on a dog. So pressurization is sounding better for said mission. Our pup goes everywhere we go, but he wears mutt muffs for hearing protection and I don't keep him above 11-12K any longer than necessary. Preferably he stays below 10K. Don't forget the Instrument Rating too; it's a must for your plan. One more thing... Telling your boss that you can be home in 4 hours or less sets you up for poor ADM. Flying GA means sometimes you simply have to stay on the ground. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Friend of mine drives a Nissan Leaf and flies a Baron 58. Gets teased a lot. Rumor has it his fuel burn on one takeoff roll exceeds his yearly energy consumption in the Leaf.[emoji846] Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Last LOP mag check was at 8,500'. I believe the previous was at 6,500' several days prior. It ran comfortably at 45/52 F. LOP but ran out of juice around 65/77 F. LOP. GAMI has been great in helping me get tuned in lately as I previously had trouble getting beyond 30 F. LOP. It takes an amateur like myself significant tweaking to dial in a 4 cylinder to run deeply LOP, but it's a fun challenge. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

FYI: I just posted a detailed report about this with graphics on a new post.

This is a follow-up to an earlier post titled "Ignition Wire Boot" I wanted to share a few graphics demonstrating a minor issue I discovered in the ignition system in my IO360. There have been no symptoms affecting functionality or performance but in studying my JPI downloads post-flight I found this issue. Ground run-ups are fairly normal with only a minor rpm drop between right and left mags. More importantly I see normal EGT rise and fall on the engine monitor during ground run-up. (see below) But LOP mag checks at altitude are a better way to check mag performance so I occasionally perform this check in flight. I will lean to well LOP and then switch to the right mag for 30 seconds, both for 30 seconds, and then left mag for 30 seconds checking for excessive engine roughness and normal EGT rise. All seemed well enough during these tests and I did not notice any unusual temps. But when I uploaded the profiles to Savvy's website an obvious anomaly stood out where the #4 EGT would rise excessively on the left mag reaching a temperature about 100 F. higher than when running on the right mag (close to 1,650 F.). (see below) This certainly appeared to be an ignition problem but my dual-mag had less than 100 hours on it since the 500-hour service, and since the problem only appeared on cylinder #4 I didn't believe it to be the mag itself. So I pulled the plugs which I cleaned, gapped, and rotated. It's surprising how the lower plugs collect a lot of lead fouling, even though I lean aggressively on the ground. I am now trying to delay enrichment on descent until at least on final, but I digress... While the plugs were out I took pics of the exhaust valves just to be sure there was no leakage due to a burned valve (all was good there). (see #4 exh. valve below) So now I figured it had to be related to a weak spark on #4 between the left mag and the lower #4 plug. The ignition wire became the primary suspect and then I recalled an earlier issue where the plug boot (insulator) was damaged while replacing the plugs a while back. When I pulled the wire off lower #4 again there was no obvious arcing but the boot definitely had a small chunk out of it near the tip where the contact-spring is located. FYI, Champion recommends lubricating their boots lightly with either Dow Corning 4 or 111 (I'd been previously told NOT to do this). Now to verify the problem all we had to do was swap the lower and upper ignition leads on #4 and repeat the LOP mag check. As expected everything seemed normal except the excessive rise in #4's EGT now occurred on the right mag instead of the left. This was again confirmed after downloading the newest JPI data and graphing. (see below) The problem followed the wire, and the insulator-boot has an obvious defect. Even though the spark is acceptable in all normal operating conditions, the added stress of running on one mag allows a portion of the energy to escape past the damaged insulator/boot into the spark plug body and to ground. So now I'm getting a new replacement boot and contact-spring and will report back with the post-repair results when able. Thank you to my local mechanic and the Mooneyspace crowd for helping me find the problem and the parts to remedy it. Cnoe

I'll post a couple of graph screenshots and follow up with post-repair results. For me, diagnosis and repair tips top the list of what makes Mooneyspace great. Many helpful individuals here![emoji1360] Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks guys; I couldn't find this myself on Spruce. I'm still looking for the literature but I think I can replace the insulator/boot/sleeve by simply removing the contact spring and carefully sliding the old one off, etc. I'm familiar with the spring replacement. Hopefully I won't have to replace or shorten the lead. Interestingly the defect has caused no functionality or performance issues but was detected during a LOP mag check at altitude. And even then I wouldn't have caught it without reviewing my JPI data on the computer. That one cylinder exhibits a significantly higher (~100F) EGT rise than the other 3 cylinders when running on that one mag. Swapping wire positions top/bottom moves the problem to the other mag. As I fly high and LOP often I want optimal spark returned to that plug. No hurry, but if you have the Slick manual .pdf I'd love a copy for reference. I'll PM you my direct email address. At your convenience for sure. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Look like these? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm looking for a little help in locating an ignition wire boot (plug end) to replace a damaged one. Sadly I didn't snap a pic of the actual boot when I had everything opened up yesterday. This would be one of the red silicone boots that goes inside the spark plug on my Lycoming IO360-A3B6D (dual-mag). The ignition leads are the silver-colored ones with the exposed shielding braid. This is for the larger (3/4") plug design. If I'm not mistaken the boot can be carefully worked off the end of the wire though the contact spring may have to be removed first. I've looked through a pile of old wires at my mechanic's shop but he didn't have what I needed. I'd rather not have to purchase an entire new wire assembly if I don't have to. So, if anybody knows where to buy a new boot, or has a pile of old wires laying around that I could rob one from I'd be most appreciative and would pay a fair amount for such. Thanks, Chuck P.S. I'll send a pic of an installed wire from my ipad so you can see the type. And I'll snap a pic of the actual boot next time I'm at the hangar (perhaps this weekend).

Thanks for the clarification and reference Awqward; that's a good article. The design summary states: There are four principal approaches to life assurance for mechanical parts that display increasing degrees of sophistication: 1. Design to keep stress below threshold of fatigue limit (infinite lifetime concept); 2. Fail-safe, graceful degradation, and fault-tolerant design: Instruct the user to replace parts when they fail. Design in such a way that there is no single point of failure, and so that when any one part completely fails, it does not lead to catastrophic failure of the entire system. 3. Safe-life design: Design (conservatively) for a fixed life after which the user is instructed to replace the part with a new one (a so-called lifed part, finite lifetime concept, or "safe-life" design practice); planned obsolescence and disposable product are variants that design for a fixed life after which the user is instructed to replace the entire device; 4. Damage tolerant design: Instruct the user to inspect the part periodically for cracks and to replace the part once a crack exceeds a critical length. This approach usually uses the technologies of nondestructive testing and requires an accurate prediction of the rate of crack-growth between inspections. The designer sets some aircraft maintenance checks schedule frequent enough that parts are replaced while the crack is still in the "slow growth" phase. This is often referred to as damage tolerant design or "retirement-for-cause". We simply need more information regarding actual occurrences of spring failure and then we can individually make a decision whether to replace the item or not based on our own risk tolerance. Great discussion guys and gals! Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is an excellent discussion and I respect everyone's position. My opinion is that if the NBS is repeatedly (or ever) reaching it's yield point then it was improperly designed and/or manufactured. Indeed if you push something beyond its yield strength it will eventually fail. Our wings experience an exponentially higher number of cycles than the NBS yet they don't catastrophically fail, even being made of a (theoretically) inferior material. FWIW I'm no expert on the subject but I have endured a course of study in metallurgy at the collegiate level. That being said a properly designed (i.e. doesn't reach its yield point) ~$1,000 spring shouldn't fail, and there's little available evidence that this is an actual problem with our planes. So far there have been 3 cases mentioned; the original one reported to Eaton, the infant mortality case, and now the Canadian GU in this thread. There may be others and it would be great to have this information along with the incident specifics such as manufacturer, time in service, etc. so that we could all make an informed decision whether to replace our own or not. Just because a corporate lawyer says it is doesn't make it so. If indeed we discover that all Mooney gear actuators were improperly designed then I too will jump on the spring replacement bandwagon. [emoji1365] Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Again, not to be combative... From the "Fatigue (material)" wiki - ASTM defines fatigue life, Nf, as the number of stress cycles of a specified character that a specimen sustains before failure of a specified nature occurs.[2] For some materials, notably steel and titanium, there is a theoretical value for stress amplitude below which the material will not fail for any number of cycles, called a fatigue limit, endurance limit, or fatigue strength. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_(material) A good spring, properly designed, manufactured, and employed should last essentially forever. Just sayin'. Cnoe

Fair enough Don. BTW, I also use Camguard and run LOP so take my opinion with a grain of salt.[emoji846] Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm not trying to be difficult, nor am I one to forgo necessary maintenance at the expense of myself or my family. But from all evidence I can gather the level of risk related to this issue appears minimal. I may not have all the information but the previously referenced SB calls for an inspection and replacement of all these springs even though it appears that the problem only exists with Eaton actuators. And then even Eaton states in the SB that "it is believed that the no-back clutch malfunction was an isolated incident". My plane does not utilize an Eaton actuator and I can find no evidence that a failure has ever occurred in this model. The problem cited in the SB is a crack or fatigue failure in the spring and unlike aluminum, steel components are not predisposed to fatigue failures unless caused by a manufacturing or innate material defect. The problem as I understand it is also unrelated to "wear". For the record my plane's no-back-spring was replaced prior to my purchasing it and still falls within the prescribed replacement period. What I am saying is that I am giving strong consideration to not initiating another replacement in the future. I cannot give advice to others on what they should or shouldn't do; I can only speak for myself. I wish that more information about this subject were available so that owners could make an informed decision rather than relying on guidance from what appears to be the standard CYA legal remedy. We could all spend many AMUs improving our safety of flight, whether it be in training or equipment, but at some point one must decide which expenses are reasonable and have an actual positive effect on safety.

I have to admit that when I left mine open (prior to start-up) it was in the wide-open position. I stepped right past it entering the plane. I then caught it on my pre-start cabin inspection. That is why I now employ the fail-safe routine. It was drilled into me to always lock the closed door by both my first Mooney partner as well as a previous Mooney instructor, though I will admit that "securely closed" seems sufficient. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk