wombat

I've looked at them. They only gain me about 50 knots on my Rocket, and effectively no useful load gain. What I've been using as my target is 100 KTAS airspeed increase and 400# more useful load with full fuel. The TBM 850 will get me those things. The maintenance costs of the TBM (According to Avex, for one specific example I've been looking at, for the next 5 years) should be about 2X my Rocket's maintenance. They don't include any engine overhaul reserve though. And the fuel burn is about 2.5X, but it's jet A instead of AVGAS.

I agree the cost is higher than those when you look at the additional capability of the other aircraft but the hourly operational cost (or cost per mile traveled) for the TBM is way lower. I don't need or want 9 seats. I really don't even need 6 seats although I would like to carry 3 passengers and luggage occasionally so having 6 seats is pretty necessary. The Lancair is a cool plane and ticks almost all of the boxes for me. But for me the additional useful load of the TBM seems like it'd be worth it. Hard to tell. I have not bought anything yet! And when I am already doing 200KTAS on such low fuel burn and low maintenance costs, it's hard to say I should spend the additional money for the speed and pressurization. I'd also have to move to a different airport, even though it's only about 5 miles further away. Oh, the horrible first world problems I have to make decisions about!

Tailwheel - Check Mooney - Check TBM - I've been considering upgrading to a TBM from my Rocket but it's a big step up financially and I'm not sure if my finances will really support it in the long term.

As far as I know, the idle speed should not be set by the throttle cable, it's set by a stop on the throttle body. Your throttle cable should let you get all the way to that stop. As for high power settings.... That really shouldn't be a factor of the throttle cable either. The throttle cable simply moves the throttle lever and the mixture, turbo, induction, and other stuff just do what they do. If the only change is the throttle cable, you have other extremely serious problems that I think you should get fixed before you attempt to fly that aircraft again. My Rocket is a 231 conversion as well, I'm happy to share pictures and whatnot if you want.

From a co-worker: Last year, I bought a new Inogen unit from Main Clinic Supply. They asked me for a copy of a prescription and I just sent them a copy of my pilot's certificate, and then they shipped me a unit without any further conversation about it.

Hah. Thanks for bringing us back on task. To answer your question: Facebook Marketplace Craigslist Example: https://bellingham.craigslist.org/hab/d/bellingham-inogen-one-g5-portable/7854022558.html

@Marc_B Strongly agree with you about this. Since as we climb into the oxygen-needing altitudes the concentration and flow rate (and therefore capability to boost blood oxygen concentration) is less well defined. Each body's supplemental oxygen requirements are different as well. Both just basic physiology as well as the way people breathe and the delivery hardware (cannula, mask, bare hose, etc) 5LPM of 60% oxygen is the same oxygen delivered as 3 LPM of 100% pure oxygen. But 5 LPM flow rate might not make it into your lungs and bloodstream as well. Or maybe it's better. I don't know. So the only way to know what's going on is to measure your saturation. And the only way to know if a given measured saturation is appropriate is to understand your condition at that saturation.

I'm saying that your quoted article saying that sensors are affected by skin tone, health status, and fingernail polish but doesn't say anything at all about accuracy at low saturation rates doesn't support your claim that popular sensors do less well at low saturation rates. As far as the flow rate goes, you can just turn it up until you reach it's maximum flow rate. 88% to 94% isn't a huge discrepancy. It's 91% +- 3%. These are perfectly adequate numbers for our purposes. It's not as you say a "HUGE" discrepancy. The differences between individuals' O2 concentrations at a given pure O2 flow rate are going to be relatively high compared to the measurement errors, so you don't really gain yourself anything by having measured and guaranteed flow rate but not a pulse oximeter. You are better off with an unknown flow rate and concentration plus a pulse oximeter. Also, any given person's response to a given O2 saturation is unique to that person and that situation and there is no good 'minimum' that is realistic for all people. Learn your symptoms at multiple measured saturations for a given measurement device and operate accordingly. Sure, you can say that 50% is bad for everyone. And you can say that 99% is good for everyone. But the saturations we care about are in between those two extremes. If the inogen is a good solution for 2 people above the altitude recommended by the manufacturer is a factor of oxygen saturation and personal symptoms and responses, not a factor of manufacturer's documentation. In your example, if you are not capable at 91% measured saturation, then turn the flow rate up and/or decrease altitude! It's that simple. I've found that I'm perfectly fine for many hours at that saturation, as measured by my oximeter. But you might be different.

#1: Does not support your claim in the slightest. #2: The worst accuracy was 7.53% error and 1/3 of them met the medical requirements of < 3% error at all measured levels above 70%. This is all perfectly adequate for our purposes. #3: This is the same study as the second link. Literally the same study by the same authors. If you want to be extremely pedantic, you said "the most popular sensors" which has no actual definition. You also said "tend to be inaccurate" which also has no definition. But you know what? I'll accept a random sample of cheap ones available for sale. I'll also give you this study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34489238/ which did specifically measure popular pulse oximeters, and they showed a maximum mean absolute value error of 5.1% And I'll quote the study here: "Conclusion: Top-selling, direct-to-consumer pulse oximeters can accurately rule out hypoxaemia" 5% is adequate for our purposes. At least for mine. If any of us are trying to titrate their blood oxygen so closely that 5% one way or the other below 90% is critical, we're already doing it wrong. Check your O2 sat.... If it's below 90%, turn the O2 up a bunch! If it's above 95%, and you want to save oxygen, turn it down a little.

In some cases, I think it does. For example, I think you are prohibited from using a nasal cannula above 18,000' MSL, if that device has been certified for aviation use and has a prohibition against use above 18,000'. This is because the FAA has made the manufacturers prohibit it in order to be certified. The way I see it, that's no different than exceeding VnE or max gross weight. But instead of a cannula, if you literally stick the end of the hose up your nose, as far as I know, that isn't prohibited. Is it a worse solution? Yes. Is it legal? Maybe? Does every product you use have a requirement to be 'certified' or 'allowed' for use in the particular way you are using it in order to be legal? No..... If you want to wear your underwear on the outside of your pants and fly around, I doubt the FAA's complaint would be that you were using your fruit-of-the-looms incorrectly. No matter how much absolutely every one of us wishes you didn't do that. Or make up your own example of something that doesn't have a clearly defined use guideline. What about using your Ferrari gloves for flying, when the manufacturer says "For use only when driving Ferrari automobiles." ? I bet the FAA wouldn't violate anyone for that. But it's closer to the oxygen concentrator example What about using an oxygen concentrator that has been certified for non-aviation purposes? Can you use that? What if it says that it's usable by 2 people up to 10,000' and 1 person up to 14,000', but doesn't explicitly say it's prohibited otherwise? What if it says nothing at all? What if all there is for this is marketing copy but nothing in the manual? Bah... All of this is pretty meaningless. Unless or until there is some sort of problem, pilots are generally free to do what they want. You want to use a concentrator? You want to split it between two of you at 15,000' ? Want to use a pulse oximeter? Unless someone can provide authoritative guidance that says you can't, I say go for it. Please be safe. [citation needed]

I've already got adapters to go from my industrial tank to my Aerox portable tank as well as the onboard tank for the Mooney. Adapting the output from a homefill machine will be easy. I do wonder how to test the output from the homefill machine to determine if it's making relatively pure oxygen and if there are any unpleasant contaminants.

When I'm filling up, I do main, aux, main, aux, then put the main cap on and switch to the other side. Then with as much time as I feel like putting into it, I'll just go back and forth topping off the aux tanks. I've gone back and forth for about 30 minutes and it still wasn't done. I've gotten 52.5 gallons in that I've measured fairly accurately, but I think I could probably get another 5 gallons in if I gave it enough time.

I thought the flap was added with the long-range fuel STC to reduce the speed of fuel flow into the main tank when the fuel level in the aux (Outer) tank is above the level of the main tank filler neck. Otherwise it'd be really easy to fill the aux tank and then have it just start flowing out of the main's filler onto the ground.

I had mine done last month. 3 altimeters, $550. They also updated the software on all my Garmin stuff for $187.50

The amps on my plane has been quite variable ever since I got it. It never just holds steady unless the engine isn't running. Positive to negative, sometimes up to 25 amps. Here is an example flight and what my ammeter reads during it. It's basically useless in terms of what the draw or charge is because I can't average these somewhat random values in my head at 3X per second. Does anyone else have similar behavior?

I've landed at Copalis dozens of times but never in a Mooney. The sand can be hard as a rock, or it can be soft enough that you'd sink in and rip off at least the nose gear on a Mooney but the soft sand is easy to identify because it's very dry and light colored. If we are willing to ignore the salt sand damage problem, landing a Mooney there would be no problem. I'd get a recent report (like last 30 minutes or less) before landing my Mooney there though. I'll land a 182 there without that. The basic question for the OP here is... How soft is soft in this case? Of the other planes you've landed there, the DA40 probably has similar tire pressures and sizes and aircraft weight... Do you just roll *on* the surface, or does it sink in at all? If the Diamond rolls on top without deforming the sand at all, the Mooney is probably just fine. You could deflate the tires a little to help. But it's probably very condition dependent. I wouldn't bother changing the oil and air filters, but I would really wash thoroughly where the salty sand gets kicked up. Maybe tape some areas off ahead of time.

Sooo.... Got the plane back from the shop. IFR certified up to 28,000'. Yikes! But the interesting part is that the oil is coming from the quick-drain on the sump and from the mess that I made when changing the oil. The quick-drain is apparently supposed to have a cap over it and it didn't have one when I bought the plane, so I never thought to look in the box of spare parts for one. And then when I changed the oil, I accidentally spilled and it ran down the bottom of the oil line to the bottom of the turbo.

It's just showing the relative awesomeness of that section.

Talked to my regular A&P; he said he noticed similar oil during annual and tightened the bolts. No other turbo work has been done since I bought it ~200 hours and 2 years ago. I have a bit of a hard time believing it's the wrong fitting, that seems like something that wouldn't take multiple years to manifest. Maybe? Just seems odd to me that it would take so long. An oil pump or check valve failing seems more likely partway though the life. I'll try to do a runup tonight without the cowl and see if there is any indication of if the oil is showing up during the engine run or after.

I don't know exactly how long this has been going on, but I just noticed it while doing an oil change. I'm at 35 hours since annual. I wasn't there for the annual so I don't know if it was getting wet at all then. Before next flight? Within the next couple of flights? Before next annual? At next annual? I did call a local shop and they have room for me on Monday, so that's nice. Any thoughts on what is likely the problem? Just loose? Crack? Pilot miscontrol? I'm at < 400 hours (tach) since factory re-manufacture and 35 hours since annual.

I replaced mine with this one: https://www.aircraftdoorseals.com/door-seal-entry-door-mooney-m20-series-ads-m1201/ It works SO much better than the one that was on it before. It actually stops almost all of the noise.

@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