Bob - S50

I'll start by paraphrasing Ron White. "If you need a new hip, you can go to an orthopedic surgeon and they can fix that. If you have a bad valve in your heart you can go to a cardiac surgeon and they can fix that. If you have problems with a sinus, you can go to an ENT and they can fix that. But you can't fix stupid." There are good pilots and bad pilots in all makes and models. I will say though that I've already noticed, at least on the COPA forum, that Cirrus and the band of merry CSIP's have done a good job of brainwashing their followers. Someone on the forum brought up a case when he was flying with a friend, on a windy day, who asked what he would do if the engine quit with 30 MPH winds on the ground. Almost every one of them said they would pull the chute. I tried to point out, that with 30 MPH winds, that's about half the stall speed. If they pulled the chute, they would hit the ground not vertically, but wherever the wind took them with a horizontal velocity of 30 MPH. And when they did land, the chute would likely flip the plane over and drag them for awhile. I tried to point out that if they simply turned and flew the plane into the wind over a nice field, they would hit the ground with the same horizontal velocity, but they could steer the plane to avoid obstacles, the chute would not drag them, and they would hit with a vertical velocity of zero instead of 1700 FPM. I think there was ONE pilot who got it. The others all still insisted that pulling the chute was the safest option. There are also many who fly approaches IAW the FOM which calls for 50% flaps and 100 KIAS on final. If they break out below 500' AGL they are supposed to land with 50% flaps. I pointed out that book speed for VFR flight and 50% flaps is 85 KIAS and that 100 KIAS makes them a category B aircraft. Still no answer as to why they recommend 100 KIAS, but I suspect it's the lawyers... if 85 is good, 100 is better. The airplane is a runway pig even at full flaps because it has about 50% more energy at touchdown than the J. That means 50% more runway. Depending on my weight, if I configure for full flaps I might fly final at 72 to 80 KIAS. Flying at 85 on final with 50% flaps would mean another 13 - 40% more energy. Not what I want to do on a short wet runway. Some got it, some did not. Many ignore the FOM and reconfigure to full flaps, many do not. A superior pilot uses their superior judgement to avoid needing their superior skills to save their superior ass. There, but for the grace of God go I.

On the IO-360 I think it's more on the order of 1 to 1.5 GPH which would be 10 - 15% for a given power. However, just saving gas (money) is not the only reason to run LOP... 1. The obvious, save money. 2. Safer. The engine makes much less CO when LOP than it does ROP so we are much less likely to succumb to CO poisoning if our exhaust system has a leak. 3. Better for the environment. Each gallon of gas I save is that much less crap I'm dumping into the air and a lot less CO2 I'm adding to the air too. 4. Better for the engine. I'm much less likely to get deposits on my exhaust valves and spark plugs so I'm much less likely to develop morning sickness or a fouled plug. That improves my dispatch reliability. Not having to fix those problems also saves money. 5. Better range and payload. If I save 1.5 GPH, on a 4 hour flight that's 6 gallons or 36 pounds of payload I can carry that I might not be able to carry when ROP. Or, if I'm weight restricted which limits the amount of fuel I can put on board, it extends my range by that 10 - 15% listed above. And if you are the type that uses a really sharp pencil, if I want to land with an hour of fuel, that might be 9 gallons LOP or 10.5 ROP so that gives you another 1.5 gallons to burn enroute instead of leaving it in the tank at touchdown. That extra range would be in addition to the range extension due to the 10-15% lower burn. Or you could use it to give you another 9 pounds of payload capacity.

As long as you don't go too deeply LOP, 75% is 10 GPH. 65% is 8.7 GPH. 55% is 7.4 GPH. I set the RPM and MP I want then lean to LOP. I can tell by the fuel flow how much power I'm making. If you have a favorite power setting (RPM/MP) after you've done it a few times you can just pull the mixture back to get the same fuel flow and it will be very close. Pretty easy too.

First, 75% ROP and 75% LOP will yield the same speed. However, to get 75% power, it will take more MP when running LOP so you can get 75% ROP at a higher altitude than you can LOP. I actually seated the rings in our engine after a Top OH by running 75% LOP. To define optimal. To me it would mean running LOP at the point of most efficient mixture or BSFC and with optimal peak pressure timing. From what I've read, that would be about 30 - 50 degrees LOP and PP at about 16 degrees after TDC. LOP is pretty easy to find with a graphic engine monitor. We have nothing to show us PP location. Since we are using the mixture knob to find LOP, we can't then use it to move PP. We can always use the prop control to move PP but the throttle can only be used to move PP if we are at lowish altitudes. Higher RPM moves PP further past TDC, low RPM moves it toward TDC. High MP moves it toward, and low MP moves it away. Timing (20 vs 25) will have a definite affect on when we hit PP. Those with engines timed at 20 should hit optimum at lower RPM than those timed at 25. Too bad we don't have a PP indicator. I found that at cruise altitudes up around 10,000' my #3 CHT (A3B6D 25BTDC engine) would flirt with 400F. By increasing RPM from 2500 to 2600, I actually dropped the CHT by about 5 or 10 degrees while going faster. The drop was probably due to a few factors; higher RPM moved PP further from TDC, higher RPM probably also dropped MP by a fraction of an inch due to friction which also moved PP further from TDC, and the higher speed resulted in more cooling air going over the cylinders.

I'm surprised it let you load the departure at all since it is a 'radar vectors' departure.

Or the other way around. The aileron trim servo is used by the autopilot for roll control. Depending on the specific (older) aircraft some have one pitch servo and some have two. If you have one, it's the pitch trim servo and the autopilot uses it for pitch control. If you have two then the AP uses the pitch servo for pitch control and the trim servo for autotrim. You can tell which you have by running the trim while the AP is engaged. If it stays engaged, you have one trim servo. If it kicks the AP off you have 2 servos. I do find the Cirrus more difficult to trim, although in my short .3 flight after removing the rudder/aileron interconnect, it seems to trim a little better.

Glad you made it safely. I didn't answer your poll because I honestly can't remember if I ever went missed while IMC. However, I have flown a Cat II approach to minimums (100 AGL) at 2300(L) to runway 4L at DTW and landed in a plane without autoland (DC9). I've also flown a Cat I approach to runway 6 at GRB, seen just the approach lights at 200', picked up the runway at 100', and landed. I also have a story for you. I was at BNA (Nashville) waiting for an inbound crew to bring us the DC9 we were going to take outbound. Weather was foggy. The inbound crew went missed because they did not see the runway at minimums. They also did not have alternate fuel because the forecast was good enough that they didn't need one. The forecast turned out to be wrong, the fog had not burned off. Fortunately, they had enough contingency fuel on board and weather was good at an airport that was pretty close (don't remember which one) so they landed, fueled up, and came back to BNA because the fog had burned off. About that same time, the airlines and the FAA were crafting new ways to avoid needing an alternate with weather lower than 2000/3 depending on the type of approaches available at the destination. Because of that I developed my own personal flow chart to determine if I was going to insist on an alternate, or at least enough fuel to get to an alternate even if the dispatcher insisted on calling it contingency fuel. I don't have that chart anymore, but it included the following decision points: 1. If I was at my destination right now, could I legally fly the approach? If the answer is no, I want an alternate no matter how good the forecast. 2. If I could fly the approach, but the current weather would require an alternate, is the current weather better or worse than the forecast for right now? If it's at or better than the forecast, and the forecast would not require an alternate, I'll believe the forecast. If it's worse than the forecast, go to #3. 3. Is the weather improving or getting worse? If the weather is getting worse, I want an alternate. Now that I only fly for fun, I use a couple other criteria: 1. I will not launch toward my destination until the current weather is at least 200 & 1/2 higher than published minimums for the approach I expect to fly. 2. If the weather is anywhere close to minimums, I don't just want a 'legal' alternate, I want one that is a significant distance from my destination and has something approaching VFR weather. 3. Once I get to my destination, I will fly all the way to minimums, not just the higher weather I wanted before I would take off.

I prefer to do my planning on the ground including fuel stops and food. Either a place to stop and eat or to bring sufficient food along. And even then, most phones will work while flying. The problem with a database is that it takes a lot of effort to keep it up to date. Witness Airnav for fuel prices. There are often times when the last reported fuel price is several weeks old and has changed. Nobody made the effort to tell Airnav. I suspect it would be even worse for diners.

I find an airport I'm interested in flying to. Then I use Goggle Maps on my phone to look at businesses around the airport.

I monitor 121.5 on #2. The only time I don't is when I switch #2 over to get the weather and then it's back to 121.5.

We were the guys that used Spencer Aircraft at PLU. Don't know if they have done a G3X or not. They have done several jobs for us. We always got several bids but always ended up using Spencer. Their price was always lowest or at least very close to it and they were close by if we ever needed to take it back to correct something. Gary runs the avionics shop unless he retired in the last year.

Thanks for the heads up. Our engine currently has 2663 Hobbs hours on it with good compression, makes no metal, and good oil analysis reports; but it's just a matter of time before we need an overhaul. When we do, I plan to try and talk my partners into an overhaul exchange from Western Skyways. They dynamically balance all their engines.

Ya, but you have to teach her how to load an approach in the GPS, how to use the autopilot, how to talk to ATC and follow their instructions, and how to control speed. None of that is trivial.

We had a 4" cushion for her but it wasn't enough.

I'm one of those who did. I did it because the wife of one of my partners wanted an airplane in which she could survive if her pilot husband died at the controls. She wanted one that gave them a better chance of survival when flying over mountainous terrain (which we have in the Pacific Northwest). I agreed with her enough and cared enough about my wife to make the trade. Is the Mooney sexier? You bet. Is it more efficient? About 25% more. Does that roll cage help in the event of an off field landing? Sure. Can I teach my wife to land? Sure, if she was willing to take the time to learn (which she isn't). When we went flying the other day it took me 2 minutes to show her how to survive if something happened to me: Push the HDG button on the AP. Turn the knob to steer the plane to a suitable place to pull the chute (not the mountains and not over water). Pull the throttle back to get below 133 KIAS. Pull the handle to deploy the chute. Assuming the chute works, pull the mixture knob to cutoff. Sit up straight, grab one wrist with the other hand, put them in your lap and wait until you hit the ground. Done. She is also likes the Cirrus a lot more than the Mooney. She thinks it's easier to get in and out of. She can see when sitting in the front seat which she could not do in the Mooney. It's roomier. The seats are more comfortable. Happy wife, happy life.

Max DEMONSTRATED speed is 133 KIAS. There have been successful deployments faster. No minimum speed that I know of. As a matter of fact, if you get in a spin the POH says you must use the chute. They say you have an excellent chance of success once you reach 500' AGL and even teach us to say 'CAPS available' as we pass that point. No mention of straight and level. So far, of all the deployments that have occurred above 1000' AGL and at or below 133 KIAS, they have a 100% survival rate.

I went from a J to an SR22 4 months ago because the wife of one of my partners wanted an airplane that would allow her to live if her husband died at the controls. Things I like: Parachute, a bit faster (10 knots or so, but burning an extra 4 GPH to do it), roomier, my wife says it's more comfortable, two doors, easy to land (the two or us that went from the Mooney to the SR22 greased the landings starting with the very first one). Things I don't like: Less efficient (8 gallons/100 NM vs 6 gallons for the J), no manual elevator trim if the trim motor quits, no window to yell 'clear' through, higher speed on final results in longer landing roll, even with the step my wife needs a step stool to get up on the wing, only 28 pounds more useful load than our J (all of which disappears when you consider fuel burn), no nosewheel steering (which makes it a pain in the ass to push back into the hangar and requires nearly constant braking when taxiing in a crosswind), a back asswards aileron/rudder interconnect that moves the aileron when you apply rudder rather than the other way around (although there is an SB to remove that which we are scheduled to do 4/12). If you get CSIP training (which most insurance companies require) they will tell you to fly final at 80 knots with full flaps which is fine for gross weight, but way too fast for most landings.

I look at it this way: 1. As to the demo you showed, the peak pressure point may not be much different between the two engines. LOP slows the combustion process and moves PP further past TDC. However, they recovered power by increasing MP. Higher MP burns faster so it moves PP closer to TDC. The net result may be very little change in PP point. 2. I am probably wrong, but try to think of efficiency of burn this way. a. At peak EGT the mixture burns as fast as possible but the mixture is not an idea mixture. That is, one area may have too much fuel for the oxygen available and another may have too much oxygen for fuel available. So even though theoretically all the fuel will be burned and no oxygen will be left, in reality there is a little unburned or partially burned fuel and a little oxygen going out the tail pipe. b. As I continue to lean and go LOP, I am supplying the engine with more oxygen than is needed to burn all the fuel. As I continue to lean, it becomes less and less likely that any fuel molecule will escape without being burned. I capture a little higher percentage of available energy (even though the total energy is decreasing). However, since I'm LOP, the burn rate slows, PP moves further past TDC, and becomes somewhat less effective. However, at least when I'm close to peak EGT, PP hasn't moved too far so the BSFC improves. As I continue to go deeper LOP, there is less and less unburned fuel so I'm not capturing any previously unused energy but PP continues to move further away from ideal so efficiency (BSFC) starts getting worse. That's why we don't want to run too deeply LOP if we are looking for best BSFC.

Not an electrical engineer, but I would think things like panel tilt and uncoordinated flight could make a difference. Without rudder trim an airplane will only be in feet off, coordinated flight at one specific speed. Any other speed and the plane will be flying sideways a bit. I found that our J picked up about 3 KTAS in cruise when we added the GFC500 yaw damper because it kept the plane coordinated in climb and cruise.

I use the QC25 with UFlyMike. Very happy with it.

Do you really mean low power? Or do you mean best economy? For low power I'd think throttle just above the horn, RPM just above the yellow arc, and about 30-50 LOP would give you the maximum time aloft. Shoot for about 90 KIAS (l/d max) clean and adjust power to get there.

I'll be serious. While I have WeatherSpork, if I didn't, other than the terminal forecast at my destination there are basically three questions I want answers to without the need to get a degree in meteorology. Is there a quick and easy (for after all, I am a pilot) to determine: 1. Cloud bases along my route of flight so I can decide whether or not VFR is feasible. Keep in mind that I live out west where we actually have mountains not just hills. 2. If I decide I can't go VFR, the likelihood I'll encounter icing; in which case I'll cancel. 3. Turbulence along my route. I know about and use the AWC Graphical Forecast for Aviation. While I'm writing this, it does not show any ice at any altitude, any place in the USA.

The equipment codes to use will depend on what equipment you have in your plane. What have you got for nav, transponder, and ADS-B equipment?

But before you lose a GI275 you have to lose the alternator, then run the ships battery dead, then run the GI275 battery dead. Hopefully you be on the ground by then, or at least VMC.

Everything on the GI-275 is certified primary, but I believe you are required to install two of them if you want to remove the rest of your six pack. The reason being that the second one which normally serves as an HSI is set up in the reversion mode so that when the AI fails (which is also displaying airspeed, altitude, VSI, heading, turn rate, and slip/skid), the HSI turns into an AI.