Jump to content

DXB

Supporter
  • Posts

    3,114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

DXB last won the day on November 7 2021

DXB had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Philadelphia
  • Model
    M20C

Recent Profile Visitors

8,143 profile views

DXB's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Reacting Well
  • Dedicated
  • Very Popular Rare
  • One Year In
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

2.4k

Reputation

  1. Any guidance on how to delete? I followed the link but can't figure out. It says I've used 247MB of 195MB available.
  2. Tugging on your Johnson repeatedly on base and final to relieve nervousness related to gearing up is a tried and true tradition among vintage Mooney pilots . Unless the gear position sensing switch in the down lock block is perfectly adjusted (mine isn't), it can show green without the Johnson bar sleeve being fully locked in receptacle. It's not a priority for me to fix - the gear position lights are a regulatory necessity but kinda stupid on these planes in my view. The position of the bar itself along with manually ensuring it is fully locked down is all you need on these planes.
  3. As mentioned, an inflight mag check under the conditions where you see the high EGT is the way to go here. That will definitively narrow down which plug/harness/mag for #1 is the problem (the side of the ignition system where the engine runs rough and EGT plummets). Then the easiest way to start is to test / swap the relevant plug before going further. The plug most likely offender and it is cheap and is easy to swap. Bear in mind this issue can happen out of the blue when a plug fouls in flight. In the couple of instances where I have experienced it in 1000hrs of flying my Mooney, the issue cleared spontaneously before I landed and did not recur, so I did not pursue it further.
  4. My O-360 in the C model got a HUGE power increase from this exhaust. Along with that power gain comes increased fuel consumption. I'm not at all surprised you get 13gph at 100 ROP, 24-squared. Leaning at all at that high power setting may be somewhat abusive for the engine (power is higher than the POH charts predict for that MP/RPM and mixture because of the exhaust). It should also haul ass at that setting (well over 150 kt - maybe even close to 160kt at 5-6k ft). By contrast, at 23-squared, burning ~8gph with one or two cylinders running LOP is completely feasible in my experience and still gives good performance in the low 140's for knots TAS.
  5. Got the frame on mine welded a while back rather than replace - some advised against but holding up well so fat
  6. Program looks great, gonna try to make it but won't be sure until date is closer. Relieved to see AOPA is represented but Dan Gryder is not - it was disconcerting to see him about to be given a platform in the Mooney community in last year's program.
  7. The tailpipe for some reason seems to be a common first point of failure - at least it was for me- way better that than a riser or the muffler. Exhaust systems definitely have a finite lifespan - mine was long in the tooth (>20 years) when the tail pipe started to disintegrate. If the exhaust is old, I'd treat the tail pipe failure as a sentinel event and overhaul/replace the whole thing. I replaced with a Powerflow, which uses heavier steel and supposedly has a longer service life when maintained correctly - then again it costs twice as much.
  8. Seems like the MSC in question should provide a generous allowance for @M20Doc to remediate this issue and perhaps offer a bit of a labor refund to the OP, along with profuse apology. Assuming they do that with the appropriate attitude, I wouldn't encourage naming the MSC publicly or going to the FAA. Even very good teams f*ck up from time to time - it's how they handle it that matters.
  9. This very recent Mike Busch article sheds further light on the valve failure issue and also calls into question some of my impressions articulated previously in this thread: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2022/may/pilot/savvy-maintenance-failure-to-rotate It also raises more questions in my mind than it answers... -He seems to think that valve failures are far more likely to originate from subtle defects at the time of manufacture and/or IRAN/overhaul than anything the pilot did. -Another striking point is his belief that a valve with early signs of a hot spot on its face can reasonably be lapped in place and the rotator cap replaced without pulling the cylinder. This impression runs contrary to my assumption that by the time you see asymmetry on a valve face, the guide must already be trashed. Maybe next time I see early signs of a burned valve on borescope I will insist on a formal wobble test before deciding to pull the cylinder. -He does do a nice job highlighting the differences between Lycoming and Continental valve design but leaves me confused regarding their implications. The rotator coils on Continentals seem to fail commonly but the same issue with the Lycoming rotator cap is rare. But in my experience the burnt valve issue in Lycomings is not rare at all. And does it really make sense often to simply lap a Lycoming valve in place and replace the rotator cap given that difference between the two designs?
  10. Interesting. Your configuration is very similar to mine (richer carb, Surefly SIM, Powerflow, LASAR cowl closure). Also you have the same engine monitoring system - BTW I routinely see 18gph on takeoff but not 19 or 20. The only major difference is your adjustable cowl flaps vs. my fixed ones. I also have a Donaldson air filter vs. your Challenger and a different system for dumping waste carb heat air, but I can't see how that would explain anything. The OATs don't seem to be the critical determinant for me - things in climb actually got a bit better for me recently with warmer temps - making me think the extra power with the cold dense air was a major contributor to the high CHT on #4 in climb. I do think there is a basic issue with the design here, with #2 and #4 getting less airflow in cruise - that may be accentuated on my setup vs. yours since your #3 is hotter than your #2 in climb. I wish I could figure out why. Interestingly, since getting the Powerflow I basically haven't been able to use 2500 rpm in cruise at any altitude (unless I want to burn 13gph to keep it cool). But if I do try to use it, I easily see TAS in the mid to high 150s (kts) !! I routinely use 2300-2400 /near WOT at altitudes like yours (8500), ~8-8.5gph, to get the same airspeed you describe, maybe even a bit faster, and still often see CHTs on #2/#4 in the 395-415 range. If I choose to burn 10gph at those MP/rpm settings, my speed is solidly at 150kt and above - I think the variable timing of the Surefly gets some credit for that. For some reason, I think part of the issue may be that my engine making a ridiculous amount of power for an O-360, and its cooling capability wasn't designed for it. We've checked and double checked timing and retarded both sides 1-2 degrees from 25, but I saw minimal improvement
  11. You definitely want the higher flow carb 10-4164-1. There is another version 10-3878M - this is 10-3878 that has been modified to match the flow of 10-4164-1.
  12. Sadly already have the richer carb for the certified engine (there's a leaner carb, the leaner carb modified to match the richer version, and the richer version - the one i have) - can't get more than 18gph on it - the main jet can be reamed larger on the richer version, though not technically legal in the certified world. Sadly already retarded both sides to 23 (also not technically legal for the engine) - no much difference. If I retard it more, there may be a power dropoff... The cowl flap modifications may be in my future - I have the fixed version on the '68 permanently set to 1.1" opening - no heim joints there...
  13. Missed approach, go-around, rejected landing, touch and go...related concepts with perhaps some important differences worth contemplating - suspect these differences and their related procedures are better codified for the guys who fly big jets. For them, the rejected landing may be one that's best left to practice in the big sims? For us, the practice missed approach from 200 AGL with the foggles on is a lot like the go-around from 20 AGL at the threshold, yet the visual cues are quite different. Also for us, practicing a rejected landing melds into the touch-and-go concept quite a bit... but I'm still not expressing opinion here on the appropriateness of touch and goes in a Mooney
  14. I've zero opinion against safety of touch and goes in a Mooney for folks who have gotten practiced and comfortable with it, though I have not. However, I do think most of the go-around training value is offered by a practicing from a low approach rather than after touching down - the latter simulates a very late go around scenario, and the primary training focus should be on using an early go around to avoid that situation (there are of course rare situations where it may be unavoidable). I whole heartedly agree that go around practice is important. One of the things I like about doing an IPC every six months is that it automatically gives me that practice three times as part of flying the missed approach. I'd probably never get around to it otherwise. In real world flying, I've gone around/missed probably only a half a dozen times, and most have been under stressful circumstances, making it easy to forget something. Once I forgot to pull up the gear for several minutes and was puzzled as to why the plane was performing so poorly on the missed approach - the only time I made that mistake, which was clearly stress induced. I was stunned by my lapse.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.