Rick Junkin

I know this isn't practical for everyone, but my practice is to fuel and preflight the airplane and avionics at home the day before departure, and then do another exterior walk-around and sump the tanks the day of. I essentially do the same at the destination by fueling on arrival and performing a jaundiced-eye post flight inspection after I put her to bed. Mama doesn't mind the arrival delay because she knows it helps ensure there won't be extensive waiting at the airport when we're ready to go home. Plus it cuts down on my, "Gee, I hope the airplane's ok and we'll be able to get fuel" blank stares during our stay

In the "how have you improved your process" category, the last thing I do before climbing into the airplane is go stand 20-30 feet off the nose and give everything a last big picture look. I caught a low tire once that had looked fine in the hangar so it catches more than the obvious stuff with flags and such.

"2"

Knowing the target approach speed provides a crosscheck for your AOA indications. And of course the elephant in this room is, not everyone has an AOA display.

You're correct, we need to adjust for GW. Roughly 1kt per 100 pounds in my M20M. If you're using Foreflight Performance subscription and you have your airplane performance set up you can get the approach speed for your projected landing weight from the Flights page. I don't have a J POH to reference, but the approach speeds for different weights are at the top of the Landing Distance chart in the M POH. Those speeds are also only computed for full flaps at the various GWs. If nothing else you can do what I did and use the Stall Speed chart, assuming there is one in your POH, and do the math for the approach speeds for no flaps, approach flaps and full flaps at the weights listed in the Stall Speed chart. My rules of thumb for empty weight plus fuel, just like we did in the jet (BAW + ordnance + fuel), as I said is 1kt per 100# (I use 15g of fuel as roughly right to make the math easier) but not sure that's appropriate for a J. Probably? "Better" and more familiar answer for you is to target the book approach value and then adjust with reference to AOA, but that requires installing a reliable AOA indicator. Now THERE'S an open Pandora's box!

How do your individual EGTs compare to the TITs from the two probes? My TIT, as measured from the OEM location, is about 75-100Fº higher than the average of my EGTs. From your pictures it appears the OEM location probe is fairly new, while the other one shows signs of erosion at the tip and buildup at the base. I would expect, as @LANCECASPER pointed out, that the worn probe would be reading lower than actual. The fact that they are reverse of this, with the newer probe reading lower, is puzzling. This is a guess, but it may be possible that the buildup of gunk at the base of the second probe is retaining heat and causing the probe to read high. I agree with Lance, installing new probes at both locations would provide a more accurate basis for comparison. If the OEM probe is indeed fairly new you may only need to replace the secondary probe, which is looking a little worse for wear. I'm not a mechanic, just a maintenance-involved owner.

Is this an emergent problem or has it always been this way? Are you always re-trimming in the same direction? Are you seeing the trim "drift" in smooth air? The first things that come to mind are either hysteresis/backlash or friction in the rudder control system. Have you looked at the condition and security of the pushrods and linkages? Were they lubricated recently?

My cylinders were ported and balanced by Lycon before I bought the airplane. Anecdotally the airplane has TKS, which typically induces a speed penalty, but it still makes book speeds with slightly lower fuel flows (tenths of GPH). And I'm able to run LOP without vibration (TIO-540-AF1B) which again anecdotally could be aided by the cylinder balancing. Not a "smoking gun" endorsement but a positive performance report.

Thanks for this info. Never would have occurred to me to drill into the turbo transition casting where this one is located. Makes sense that a second TIT probe would be required to get it displayed on a non-certified monitor. Having said that, here's a pic of my transition during installation of the overhauled exhaust. It has a second TIT probe mounting point cast into it. I thought it was odd, but now I understand why it's there. Thanks Paul!

Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I just learned that EFIS Editor https://rdamazio.github.io/efis-editor/ can be used to import, edit, and print checklists created in Foreflight. It can also be used to create checklists from scratch and export them in the FMD format that Foreflight uses. I've been asking Foreflight to develop a web based checklist editor for years, and here the capability was available from a third party all along. The really cool thing for me is that this same editor can import/export your checklists in multiple formats for use in Garmin, Dynon, and other avionics. That means I can load the checklist I built for my G3X and export it in FMD format for redundant use in Foreflight. AND I can print it, something lots of folks have been wanting to do for years. I hope this is useful information for other folks.

I'm curious as to why someone drilled into the turbo transition casting to install a second TIT probe. From the picture it looks like the second probe has been there for a while, judging from the build up at the base of the probe. It shouldn't be there, but someone obviously thought they needed it. Do the log books shed any light on when and why it was installed? To my knowledge that casting is no longer available except through salvage and plugging the hole after the probe is removed might be problematic. But I'm not a mechanic so someone else here probably has a solution to share. I had mine overhauled with the rest of the exhaust earlier this year and it came back looking like new. Just to make sure we're all talking about the same probes, I've put a green circle around the OEM probe location and a red square around the added probe. The #6 EGT probe is in the riser above the transition, right about the same place mine is.

What year did you attend the Cirrus training course?

Excellent. I'm looking forward to hearing if this resolves your issues.

I thought this was interesting and enlightening. Some of you may already know this but it was new learning for me. A good friend of mine is an instructor at the Cirrus Training Center in Knoxville. He explained to me why he would almost never attempt an off-field landing in a Cirrus. He said there is a very high probability of nose gear collapse and flip-over on a rough field landing, which would likely trap the occupants inside. According to Jeff: The Cirrus CAPS system is designed to descend the airplane in a slightly nose down attitude. In addition to the honeycomb seat structure that absorbs an amazing number of Gs on ground impact, the nose gear structure is designed to fail in such a way as to also absorb impact energy. Because of this the nose gear is not as robust as one might think. Anecdotally I recalled hearing about quite a number of nose gear collapses on Cirrus aircraft as a result of bounced landings, which now makes more sense to me. Jeff then showed me some pictures of Cirrus airplanes upside down in pastures where an emergency landing had been attempted. Now, I know you're probably thinking the same thing I was, that any airplane could flip over on an emergency landing in a soft or rough pasture. But according to Jeff the odds are way against you in a Cirrus, and the risk of getting trapped in the airplane if it flips is exceedingly high. If an unknown open field were his only option in an emergency he would definitely use the CAPS. So that's why the Cirrus training emphasizes (insists?) that the CAPS is the answer to an engine failure over anything but a suitable/designated landing strip. In optimizing the airplane for the survival of the occupants after a CAPS deployment the nose gear was developed with a shock-absorbing collapse as a design feature. That explained a lot for me.

I think there is a good chance you'll see the spread narrow back to 0.5gph once you get the other issues sorted. Good luck! And yes, please do share the feedback you get from Savvy. Another opportunity for me to learn something.