Jump to content

Austintatious

Supporter
  • Posts

    824
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Austintatious

  1. I doubt that this has much if anything to do with the extra weight in the nose... Rocket added another battery in the tail and typically a lot of charlie weights... The CG envelope remains the same, but there is indeed a slight forward movement of the empty CG, though it is still in the envelope. One would hope the engineers wuld have designed the nose strut to be able to hold up to a forwardmost CG. I am not still convinced that this did not happen during tow... The strut brace on that side making contact could cause the exact failure that I see. One would think that the tube would crush first, but it may have been a case of a pre existing crack opening up when it was oversteered... A mechanic will have to look and make a determination... Does anyone know anything about doing an "owner repaired" part in a circumstance like this?
  2. Yea, I hear you on the truss tubes... as for the metal not being clean, it is possible this happened 2 months ago... I had been busy and the aircraft had not been flow (shame on me I know)
  3. Well, I found the problem, its not good. I am beating myself up because in hindsight, as soon as I noticed anything I should have stopped and VERY thoroughly inspected the nose strut. OTOH, I actually DID do that after the first landing and found nothing obvious. In fact I inspected things 3-4 times before finding the problem and in retrospect it was probably because I was not looking in the right place, since in my mind it was a pedal adjustment issue. Here is what I found. Does this look like Damage from a tug or something else?
  4. OK, this explanation can get complicated if you want to know a bunch of why questions. I am happy to answer the ones this will raise but they are irrelevant to the issue at hand. My partner an I have 2 rockets we each own half of and recently we traded airplanes so that the one I typically fly could go through annual at his home-base where there is a readily available shop who works on both aircraft. Well, when we traded back, this aircraft sat for a few months before I got to go fly it. When I got in and taxied the aircraft, I noticed that the rudder pedals are not centered to go straight. I figured I just had not been in the aircraft for a while and it was me not the plane. Well, I have come to the conclusion that something has changed... On takeoff and landing it is clear that the orientation of the nose wheel in relation to the pedals is off... The pedals are mostly centerd when in flight, but the right pedal must be more forward when on the ground, this makes the moment the nosewheel touches the ground or come off the ground on landing./takeoff more exciting than it should be. I checked for any signs of the FBO over turning the nose strut and found none. The Shop that did the work didnt do any work on this mechanism. My partner does not recall this when he flew it from his homebase to mine after the annual. I don't have any idea how this has changed or what even might be wrong.... Any input would be most appreciated.
  5. What I do to make nice landings is these 2 things... Speedbrakes out all the way down and as I go into the roundout/flair, I very very slowly start pulling the power all the way to idle... then fly it on. Works great.
  6. Neither engine runs rough when we go LOP... Until we go TOO LOP. The issue is that we get to the temp limit of the TIT if we are at any power setting over 55%. It would be nice to run 70% power and LOP.... but we simply cannot as the TIT will be too high. When we have tried, we keep leaning until the TIT starts to dropto safe levels, but by the time it does, we get an onset of rough running.
  7. Thank you everyone for the input. To clarify a few things.... 1- This is ROP operation... these aircraft only like to run LOP when at very low power settings (55%) Especially up high... the TIT prevents it.. IE: the TIT is too high and does not come down before the onset of rough running. 2- Both aircraft have GAMIs. Though the Gamis are relatively new on the 79 and we have not gone through the gami process. I have been through that process on the 84 with the hot number 5. We even put a new injector into the number 5 cylinder to increase its fuel flow a bit trying to cool it off. It did help a bit. 3- The single TIT probe in the 79 is brand new... The probes on the 84 are not new, however as per the rocket TIT test they are both accurate 4- The E mag does not advance/retard timing 5- The baffling is all in very good condition on both and all appears in order. 6- Both aircraft have the "pixie hole" in front of the number 5 cylinder. Though they look identical and like they are "stock" ... If anyone has a picture of theirs I would love to compare. I will concoct a plan to gather some data with the engine monitors. I'll incorporate the single mag run up data, lean find data and TIT Test and get that posted. It may be a bit before I can get both. Thanks everyone!
  8. This may get a bit long, but Ill do my best to keep it short. So I have these 2 rockets, both M20K. One is a '79 and one is an '84. The 79 has a JPI 900 and the 84 has an insight g2. The engines have about the same amount of time on them... The 79 however has a brand new turbo and an E mag, neither of which had any effect on what I am about to describe. Here is the observation that we cannot reconcile. In a nutshell, both aircraft essentially get limited to a min fuel flow for various power settings. That is to say that if we fly either of them at say 30/22 , we have to flow about 18 GPH in both of them. Here is the curious part: The 79 is limited by the TIT. Any less FF and the TIT is too high. But the #5 cylinder (the hottest) temps are fantastic though. The 84 However is limited by the number 5 cylinder. But the TIT is much lower, by about 100-130 degrees. So I end up limited in ability to further lean at the same flow for any given power setting, but for different reasons and it strikes me as odd. In the 84 if the number 5 cyl wasn't so hot, I could lean a lot more before the TIT got to hot. And in the 79 if the TIT wasn't so high, I could lean a bit more before the #5 cylinder got above 370. So It feels like some extra economy is being left on the table in each aircraft for different reasons. Here are some more observations : The EGT's on the 79 are higher, but the CYL head temps are lower ( TIT is higher) Both have the "pixie hole" for the #5 cylinder Example comparison '79 '84 cruise@30/22 FF 18gph 18gph TIT 1600 1480-1500 (according to 2 different gauges) #5 cyl 360 low 380's Now, I know 20 degrees does not seem like a massive difference in CYL head temp, but I am in the yellow at 390 on the insight gauge, and according to Savvy aviation, I should be taking action at 380 to try to stay below that. To put it simply, if these 2 TSIO520NBs were actually on a twin, we would really be scratching our heads about why these two engines, which are identical have differing indications in these parameters. The thing is, as I think about this there cannot be something "wrong" on just one of the aircraft if there is indeed something off... If it was only 1 aircraft, and the "issue" was fixed, that would allow more leaning on that aircraft and then we would be noting a difference in fuel flow between the two. So, the Possible causes I can think of: 1. We are being too pedantic about the numbers. If we did not have the two to compare to one another, we would have no complaints. However consider if they were on a twin. 2. The TIT probes are not identically located and thus giving different readings and the 79 is reading hotter than actual and the 84 reading cooler than actual. 3. There is a slight difference in timing between the two aircraft. the 84 having slightly more advanced timing, resulting in lower EGT's but higher CHT's and the 84 having slightly retarded timing resulting in higher EGTs and lower CHT's. 4. A combination of the above including the possibility that on the 84 the number 5 cylinder is running leaner than the others. Anyhow, any ideas? Any of you rocket owners care to share some of your engine parameters?
  9. I have been quoted 550 by the only shop at my field.... I just do it myself and save myself $400.00
  10. Unfortunately, I got to experience what this is like shortly after takeoff in a Piper meridian... Engine rolled to idle and that big ol prop dragged me back to terra firma real fast!.
  11. Of all the things to have trouble finding, I cant believe Oil filters are an issue.
  12. I agree, everyone should know the prop type they have and fly accordingly. I do own two Rockets, however I only own half of each, so it looks like I am back down to $0.02 !!
  13. I dunno, I have thought a lot about this and I am not certain that if I went with a 4 blade prop that I would not still prefer the full feathering. Now, keep in mind that I have been in a crash after takeoff and have experienced a Prop governor malfunction in the Mooney Rocket... though it was just erratic RPM. Yes, we can certainly think up scenarios where a feathering prop would not be preferable... this of course being a prop governor failure between insufficient runway remaining ahead and about 500-750 feet AGL. So yes, in that one particular scenario, I would rather the prop not feather. The good news is that if you find yourself with that emergency, with a feathering prop, at least you have a good glide ratio and can perhaps pick your crash better. A feathering prop also allows "the impossible turn" to be successful at a lower altitude. I suspect as low as about 300-400 feet where you might need 750 without a feathering prop, YMMV. However... When I think about ENGINE failure after takeoff, well, you lose thrust no matter your prop... so feathering is preferred. And, should the engine fail in cruise, certainly a feathering prop is preferable. Now you may be thinking, what if the prop governor fails in cruise? If that happens, again, at least you have good glide ratio and can likely make an airport safely. Consider an engine failure during approach... With a full feathering prop, you can still make the runway on a 3 degree path. Without a full feathering prop you cannot. And if you have a full feathering prop, and the prop gov fails, at least you can make the runway. Just my .02
  14. I would be all for TKS if not for the hit in speed. Or if I lived and flew somewhere where Ice is unavoidable. I just try to stay out of it and if I get into it I get out ASAP. If I know there will be ice that I cant avoid or rather will be difficult to avoid, I just dont go. Simple. I dont ever fly my mooney in a "have to go" mindset.
  15. Has anyone seen the Veloce 600 ? It is a new kit that Veloce is promoting... Of course it looks cool, and the numbers are beyond good... in fact they look too good to be true and I get some pretty shaky vibes from listening to the guy talk about it. For instance... they are claiming that with TWO 300 hp motors that it will cruise 270 KTAS at FL250 at 75% power burning a TOTAL of 25 gallons... yea, that's right, a 300 HP engine at 75% burning 12.5 GPH.... I have enough experience with engines to know this cant be the case. My 305 HP tsio520 would burn twice that amount at 75% and my 3 injected Mercury Verados would do the same. Any calculator will say as much... So I cant help but wonder if this is a deliberate LIE or the guy forgot to DOUBLE the FF on account of it being a TWIN... or maybe I am missing something. Why does this sort of thing plague aviation!?!?!
  16. I've got a Pik20e self launching glider. My dream is to move to the country, have my own hangar and runway and fly to work. If that Happens I will buy a "cheap" backup aircraft.
  17. Time may tell. We are still highly suspect of the mag when it is heat soaked.
  18. Some good advice in this thread... I have a lot of comments but most have been covered in here so I dont feel my opinion on those topics has any more value to add... However, I have not seen one thing mentioned and I think it needs to be said. Have a good bead on a mechanic or shop that is honorable and capable of working on whatever you buy. Finding good honest mechanics close to home has been an absolute BANE to me. I have had to suffer multiple disappointments and financial losses do to incompetent mechanics and borderline charlatans.
  19. Update. Surefly offered to send us back the mag we sent them, as it had checked out OK on the bench, OR to send us a different overhauled mag REV 2. We opted with the REV 2 replacement and installed it alone with a new harness. The problem has gone away. We will of course be watching it closely. Also upon close examination, the harness we replaced had absolutely no signs of any malfunction or damage/wear that might have caused the issue. I guess we will see. If we have the trouble again, the old Mag will be going back on the aircraft.
  20. Thank you, yes we did do exactly that with no change... though I failed to mention that in the first post
  21. UPDate: We spoke with Surefly and they are saying it sounds like a harness issue. We went with the Maggie harness on their suggestion. We have a second, brand new harness at the ready so we are going to swap them out. Surefly is also sending us a test harness that we can also try to see if this resolves the issue. If that doesn't work, we will probably go back to the old tractor mag and then try to figure out what to do with TWO surefly mags we bought.
  22. Yes, the problem happened with 2 different sureflys. The bold section disturbs me greatly.
×
×
  • 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.