AdventureD

Thanks for the clarification that the Acclaim Ultra covers all the bases we’ve discussed. Agree the comment is irrelevant given the info in the POH.

One more and I'll stop. The original Lancairs has 3/8 inch fuel lines. They work fine if there are not excessive bends in the lines, which disrupt flow. But if there are significant bends, the susceptibility to vapor lock is greater. Later versions of these planes increased the fuel line size to 1/2 inch. Cirrus ( which largely copied the Lancair ES), has gone to 5/8 inch lines! There is little doubt this evolution in fuel line diameter is driven by the risk of vapor lock. I don't know the fuel line size in the Ovation and Acclaim, which use the same engines as the Lancairs and Cirrus. But the evolution I just described in all likelihood is driven by vapor lock concerns.

The io 550 is definitely susceptible to vapor lock (not overly so, but in the Lancair community it's a real awareness point)

In my Lancair, my personal decision is to take off with low boost (I have high and low) on. Backup in case the engine driven pump fails; helps prevent vapor lock. I'll turn it off in climb, but I wouldn't if it were really hot. I'll leave it off above 10,000, but I wouldn't if it were hot, and it's the first thing I'd hit (along with richening the mixture) if the engine sputtered. I realize this is a Mooney forum, but we're running the same engines, and they don't operate differently based on the name on the plane.

From the Lancair community (same engines as Ovation and Aclaim), vapor lock is ABSOLUTLY REAL. Use your boost pump to avoid cavitation when it's hot. I have a Bravo and a Lancair. My understanding is that the Continental in my Lancair is more susceptible to vapor lock (quite a bit more--I dont knw why) than the Lycoming in my Bravo. The IO 550 (Ovation) and TSIO 550 (Acclaim) folks flying Lancairs with these engines are all TAUGHT in recurrent training to use the boost pump above FL100. It's in my ES POH. I have little doubt what happened here.

What? I fly a Lancair with a big bore continental (like the Ovation and Acclaim), and vapor lock is a big deal in these engines. On hot days, we keep low boost on down low to prevent cavitation. Above 10,000, we keep low boost on it it is remotely hot. Why? vapor lock.

I've been in acadamia (econ professor at several universities; still publishing articles in relevant journals). My opinion is that this is yet another example of "equality" oriented language that is more harmful than it is helpful. But others are certainly entitled to their own opinion.

"Student" pilot has meaning in aviation. It means someone who has not yet passed their check ride. "Learner" is what we all are. I think we were all taught that it's a license is a license to learn, and none of us wants to stop learning. It's ridiculous that authorities assign a word to students that appears to put them on equal footing with those who have passed their check ride. Why? It's pretty much like all the participation trophies that kids get for playing soccer, and all the cheers they get from mom, dad, uncle "Great Job," and aunt "Way To Go Bambi" for simply kicking the ball into oblivion. Everyone deserves a trophy! If we're all equal now, why bother ever taking instruction? Obviously, none of us needs it. We are all just different levels of learners. Not sure whether any of this is related to what irks Don, but when I received flight instruction from him on how to fly and land a Mooney, I felt like a student, which is what I was compared to him in the Mooney. I suspect he'd say we are both always learning. Replacing the word "student" with "learner" is just STUPID. Loved being a student and love learning in my Mooney Bravo, Dan

Thanks all. Switched #6 and #4 probes and the the difference persists—probe. But it’s a brand new probe. Maybe wrong type—it looks slightly different than the others. TIT—Took it out and see the probe is cracked. Probe. inspected exhaust. No cracks, no leaks. Everyone on the ground said it sounds great. Flying from WI to CA tomorrow knowing the issues are with probes.

More Insight G2 travails --- Is this instrument helping me, or is it just being a pain in the neck? Here's what has happened since I purchased the plane in December 2019. 1. Instrument had the blue screen of death (well, actually, just snow) a few months ago. 2. Fixed the instrument by sending back to Insight (not cheap, and seems all they did was reset something). A couple flight hours later, the #6 CHT probe failed. I worried that it was a cyllinder, but the mechanic said it was the probe. 3. Fixed the #6 CHT probe at annual, but #6 now reads 100 degrees lower than the other CHTs even though it was a bit hotter prior to the failure described in (1). All analog gauges are reading normally, engine is smooth, and mag check is normal if the plane is sufficiently leaned on the ground. 4. Mechanic says not to worry about the "cold" cyllinder, as EGTs all seem about normal, and EGT is a better indicator of engine health. #6 EGT is about like the rest. And as noted in (3), all analog gauges seem to be where they're supposed to be. The Insight is an add-on instrument, and had it not been added to the aircraft, the pilot wouldn't have seen a thing that is out of order. As it is, the pilot is wondering by now, "what is going on?" 5. On flight from east coast to midwest (prior to planned trip to home base on west coast in a few days), the Insight TIT suddenly massively redlines, while the analog gauge remains right where it should be based on experience given fuel flow and MP and RPM settings. So now, the situation is: (i) the #6 CHT remains likely wrong, AND (ii) the Insight TIT is going nuts. All while all the analog gauges are in the normal range, EGT for each cyllinder on the Insight gauge (and analog gauge for the specific cyllinder monitored), remain normal. 7. Based on some debugging on the ground, I find that each mag check in a run-up generates EGT and analog TIT increases (the Insight TIT is redlined) as I understand is expected. So...Is something wrong? Probably the Insight probes are kaput or something else is wrong with the Insight? I understand the Insight TIT probe and analog TIT probe are in a slightly different places. Could the high TIT reading from the Insight be some exhaust problem or some other problem, or is it likely that the TIT probe for the Insight is bad? My thought: The likely answer is that the Insight G2 is repeatedly being a pain in the neck. But maybe you can convince me that I'm getting information out of it that is actually useful and that I should heed some warning. Happy flying, Dan

Hi all, Bought a Mooney Bravo in December and have about 75 hours on it. Trained with Will Wobbe and Don Kaye after 15 years of not flying. Highly recommend both. Will helped me ferry the plane and get back into flying--tons of reeducation--and Don taught me more about landing airplanes and careful attention to detail than I learned through all my private and instrument training, by far. But I still sometimes come in too fast and bounce em now and then (sorry guys). :). Love the airplane. A couple months ago the CHT probe on #6 went bad. After learning it was the probe and not the cylinder (only 350 hours since factory reman) I didn't worry much. Compression in #6 was high 70s and #6 EGT was good, so all seemed fine. Then I had the CHT probe replaced. Now it shows about 100 degrees cool, still with a EGT in the right range (see photo). #6 was not cool before the probe went bad. Instrument is an Insight G2. Engine seems smooth enough, EGTs seem fine, and power and smoothness seem fine. Replaced the spark plugs a couple months ago--new champions. Mag drop seems a little steep unless I do the run up with ground leaning, in which case it seems normal. Nothing weird in flying. Very slight roughness? Maybe, but I'm probably paranoid. I'm on a trip now (2500 miles from home!). Mechanic says low CHT is not a critical indicator of poor cyllinder health; EGT is a better indicator of health; should check when I return. Agree? Any thoughts?

ES (fixed gear) with an IO-550. It's pretty easy to fly but with lotsa power and speed, especially for fixed gear. A bit faster than the Cirrus with the same engine. I'm told "float" on landing is "like a Mooney." It lands slightly faster, but handling is nice like the Mooney. Not one you want to stall, though, especially not a power-on stall. Laminar flow wings; very slippery; not a Cessna. Power-off stall is OK if plane is built well, but my practice on this dimension will be about stall avoidance.

A comment like the one you reference won't insult OP. My question created a discussion that as helped me, and that was my goal. This list is a great resource and I appreciate all the responses. ... I'm the one who's gotta figure out what I want :).

OP here... First, the plane's history (which might be determined partly thorugh a filtered discussion with the owner) and a good pre-buy will inform the "money pit" aspect of your comment. Second, the issues are (i) whether the plane is priced above or below the expected value (which was not my question), and (ii) whether any particular plane is relatively more risky than another (which is implicit in my question). Assuming risks (measured by, say, the variance of value) are the same for two planes, additional questions are the purchaser's tolerance for risk and preferences for quality. Sorry, I'm an economist, and familiar with the Capital Asset pricing model. Doesn't change my question. Thanks :). Happy and safe flying, AdventureD

Flyer898, this is great information -- Thanks!