wombat

@kortopates Thanks for that additional info!!! I'll consider my 26" and 30" manifold pressure to be high MAP / Low RPM combo. I have not been running LOP at all, so that puts me in the danger zone for increased wear. Interesting to note that Continental did say that there were two IO-520's that had this problem as well as the two TIO-520's that I think we can attribute to Cape Air. So while I'm feeling quite a bit more informed about this and more confident that I am unlikely to just fall out of the sky if I cruise at 2,200 RPM, I'll probably avoid it. I'll consider it if I've got amazing tailwinds and a flight I need to scrape all the range out of but I'm not going to use it regularly.

I've found this to be the case with a lot of things. While it's true that A is better than B, (In this case, lower RPM) the improvement margin is not significant and might be outweighed by the benefit of other factors that we hadn't even been considering. Some examples: 2,300 RPM is more efficient, but the plane is 'smoother' at 2,350 RPM. Overall, you'll spend less money at 2,350 because there is less wear. One hike is 'better' than another, but because it's on the list of best hikes, it's less pleasant than a different trail that has lower traffic. A refinance loan might be at a better interest rate, but refinance costs take away the benefit of refinancing.

I'm assuming you are talking about Mike Busch here. And while I tend to give a lot of weight to his opinions, until I feel I have enough information to decide that something doesn't increase my risk more than I'm comfortable with I'll usually go with more conservative options. And I don't have any information on what the actual wear/failure modes were for these four engine stoppages and why Continental issued the SB. Was this a harmonic issue that causes cracks and sudden failure, or was this a wear issue? TCM does say " TCM will continue to evaluate these reported counterweight releases in an attempt to establish a root cause" but that was 15 years ago from the original, and over 10 since the update. I don't think they are actually doing this if they have not done it yet. There are only 4 stoppages noted on this. While they are pretty catastrophic, 4 is not a very large number. But I don't have even an estimate of the fleet size of these engines that run regularly below 2,300 RPM. So I don't have a way to judge the risk increase. I don't have much time on my plane so far, but I have not yet used 2,200 RPM in cruise and as such, the cost to me of continued disuse of this power setting is low enough that when combined with my lack of information about the risk increase, I'll probably continue to not use it. To make life easier on myself I went ahead and made a new in-flight reference sheet that doesn't include them. @kortopates Can you clarify what you mean by 'Cape Air profile', and what you consider 'very high MAP' (does 30" or 26" count? What about 35"?) and assuming that ROP means Rich Of Peak, why that even matters? I want to be clear that I'm not trying to call you out or say your data or opinions are bad or wrong, I'm trying to say I don't understand this situation and I'm looking to you for help understanding it better. https://continental.aero/service-bulletins/CSB09-11A.PDF

I made an updated performance quick reference sheet for my plane removing the 2,200 RPM options for cruise. They are not illegal, but they are recommended against by the engine manufacturer. I've also included the TIT test procedures and eliminated some things I don't use. M20K Rocket 305 Power Settings and Performance - Google Sheets.pdf

I have also just taken pilots up to 17,999' (You can go higher if you want to be IFR) so they can experience it in real life. I'm on O2, but they are not a required flight crewmember, so it's up to them.

It seems that in M20Ks there are several cowl flap actuation options. Mine is not working well. It won't stay shut, and when it opens it goes overcenter and then I can't close it. There is also so much slop in my system because it's badly worn. Does anyone else have a system similar to this? cowl flaps.PDF cowl flaps0001.PDF cowl flaps0002.PDF

I take my Rocket up to FL210 every now and then. And I've been up to FL230 for one long flight with 73 knot tailwinds. Yes, there are some increased dangers at those altitude. If you are new to it, I recommend you read "An Aviator's Field Guide to Middle-Altitude Flying" By Jason Blair https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/may/21/field-guide-to-middle-altitude-flying I recommend at least one experience with hypoxia either as a non-required crewmember or in an altitude chamber where you can focus on the hypoxia and not on flying. One thing I've noticed repeatedly in aviation is that people tend to upgrade to aircraft with increasing capabilities and safety throughout their flying career. Then after they have upgraded to something more safe, they will decry everything less than their current budget permits as 'too dangerous'. The FAA sets the standard for minimum safety. If you want to be more safe, that's great for you. I quite often want to be more safe myself but I won't argue if others want to do no more than follow the rules.

@William Munney It looks like you've probably got a GTX-345R in your panel which should provide ADS-B in as well. I just link my iPad to the GTX-345-R for ADS-B, FIS-B and TIS-B input to see in ForeFlight. So I'm wondering why you have the Stratus on the dash as well.

If an airport has a landing fee published correctly and I land there, I will pay it. I don't care how they identify me or even if they do. I will call them up to pay if I have to. If an airport has a tie-down fee with appropriate notification, I will pay it. I will figure out how to pay it. If I get a bill that I don't owe, I will not pay it unless forced to do so by the government, but that hasn't happened yet. It sounds like Vector has a lot of false positives which is too bad.

Interesting. No, I don't have more recent documentation, I'd never even heard of this one. I learned something today!

You are wrong. 30" and 2,200 RPM is an approved power setting 26" and 2,200 RPM is an approved power setting Also, 25" and 2,200 RPM is listed as minimum descent power I suggest you reference the documentation

I fly a TSIO-520NB in a Rocket. Take-off: 2,650 RPM @ 38" MP Climb: 2,500 RPM @ 35" MP Cruise: Pick a setting from the chart. Higher headwinds == higher power Higher tailwinds == lower power RPMs are either 2,200, 2,300, or 2,400 MPs are 30, 31, 32, 33, or 40 inches 26" is also an option on the chart, but I never use it..... I didn't buy an airplane to fly slow.

Some recent flying related pictures. My Mooney with a Blackfly from https://pivotal.aero down at Byron (C83) San Francisco from the air on a beautiful day Garmin Math: 200 KTAS + 12 KT tailwind == 215 KT groundspeed.... It was a worse discrepancy on a different flight but I hadn't thought to take a picture. In my home area the Arrowleafs are blooming. It doesn't show up as well in the picture as it does in real life, but the hills are really pretty right now.

Sooo.... Thanks to @Parker_Woodruff my insurance cost dropped from $4,063 to $2,666 His knowledge of the Mooney models and insurance underwriter procedures led him to reach out to an underwriter that had previously rejected my application with additional information they approved it this time at a much lower rate than other underwriters. Thanks, Parker!! If I get down to Dallas I'll look you up and maybe we can go fly!

I just got my quote: $1M / $100k per passenger Hull value: $250k There is an open pilot clause (Although I forget the hours requirements) but I'm the only named pilot. $4,063 ($4,468 if I increase the per passenger to $250k)

By 'timing' I mean timing on the controller's part... They might have thought you had not yet crossed the approach course even though you actually had crossed it already. And then they didn't check that they'd actually given you the instruction before crossing the course, they just gave you their pre-planned heading and moved on with their lives. And for the speed thing, I was making a joke... You were (I assume!) flying a Mooney, so of course you were going super fast! All Mooneys are fast! Rocket or a C. But seriously they could have assumed you were in a 172 or a 152 and mentally assigned you 90 knots or something. But it's probably more like "Oh, they are a light GA plane, they'll reach the final approach course in about 90 seconds from where they are on my screen" but they were just wrong. I do think the sharp intercept angle is a serious bad on their part. Although when looking at the ground track, that doesn't look like a 60 degree intercept. What were the winds doing? That could kind of explain all of this; if winds at your altitude were strong from the SE that would have pushed you across final before they were ready for you and could explain why they gave you such a sharp intercept angle. Just took a piece of paper and folded it to 45 degrees, and that almost exactly matches up with the intercept angle on your screenshot, not 60 degrees. There is no question in my mind that the controllers messed up. They gave you an intercept that didn't work. I'm assuming that you didn't take like 30 seconds to start the turn because if they'd given you that heading 30 seconds earlier it would have worked. To more gracefully handle situations like this, maybe pay more attention to when you cross final and consider (really: just think about it, not necessarily do it) telling them when you've flown through the final approach course. "Philly Approach, Mooney 12345 passing through final approach course." But you did say that particular controller had 'attitude'. So that might hurt more than help. But also that mental cue might help you recognize sooner that the heading they gave you won't get you back to the track you want to fly.

I'm curious... what are you cutting with? Plasma? Laser? End mill? Water?

Perhaps the original problem isn't a math problem on the controller's part, it's a timing problem. They could have been waiting for something before giving you that final turn and clearing you for the approach. Maybe for another aircraft to pass the MAP or maybe for the end of the episode of Ren And Stimpy or whatever. Doesn't matter. They expected you to still be to the right of the final approach course and gave you a heading that would work in that case, but you had already flown past it so the heading they gave you no longer worked. The Seattle Approach controllers fly me through the final approach course fairly often when I am on the approach to Boeing Field (KBFI). Then I have to get a much larger turn to re-intercept. The underlying problem here is that you were flying too fast! If you'd been 10Kt slower, you would have been to the right of the approach course when they gave you that last turn. What speed mods have you done? Did you get the PowerFlow exhaust? Did you leave your ram air door open? Al Mooney strikes again!!

The fastest I saw was 259KT ground speed but 250 was closer to average for the highest tailwind portion. https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N5773S/history/20250326/1755Z/KSMX/S35 ATC called at one point to ask what my tailwind was. I should have told them "It's a 30 knot headwind, but I did just install a PowerFlow exhaust!" But I didn't think that quickly.

Just got my annual finished. Flew down to Santa Maria to Artcraft Paint to have them take a look at the plane. Chances are pretty good I'll be taking it to them this fall for a full repaint and interior. Some pictures: Some buildups over the Cascades on the return trip today (26 March). They'd been predicting 1/2" hail, but unless something drastic changes I don't see those clouds producing anything that wild. I had a tailwind of up to 60 knots on the return trip at 16,000'. Lake Tahoe on the way North today, from 16,000' Sunset over the low clouds over the ocean on Tuesday evening. (24 March) (OVC 800 at SMX so it was an instrument approach and landing with a tailwind because the other runways have too high of minimums and the circling approach mins are 800'... And I'm not about to do my first circling approach in 7 years in the dark right at minimums) Crater Lake from Tuesday afternoon (25 March):

Does the G500 really have to be a TXi or can it be a 'classic' G500? Not really important to me at the moment, but I've got a classic G500 and if I ever want to change to the GFC500 autopilot, a new G500TXi would add $20k to the install bill.

Does anyone here know what the tolerances are on placement?

I just heard from the Baja Bush Pilots that Mexico no longer is issuing a flight plan to any private airport in Mexico that is not listed as a Third Party port. There are only four of these airports in Mexico. To see more, click here To read the AFAC circular, click here.

@mooneygirl recently did a presentation at the Pacific Northwest Aviation Conference & Trade Show that focused on psychology and personal minimums. I bet she's got plenty to add to a thread like this.