dkkim73

I think I remember that plane from when I was shopping. Super-cool paint job. Looking forward to welcoming the new pilot/owner/family!

It is a great enabler. Without it, where I live and commute my options would be far fewer and I would be constantly sweating MEAs. The MORAs would be often far above. But it actually simplifies engine management IMHO. Even a 1.5 hr flight really benefits from altitude selection, as Paul suggested.

Well that's me, masterful like Chuck Yeager... Oh wait, that's in Opposite World. This is exactly my nagging concern. The GFC will let you reconfigure to your heart's content on the GS, but it's a brittle workflow especially if there are distractions.

Would love to. Burlington is beautiful and that's a good time of year. Last time I was there several years ago I recall the regional brewers are exceptional. However, I've got a request in for time off from work to do the next one in Texas (Ft. Worth, I believe). David

I've not had the 'pleasure' of being a civilian AME, but was a military flight doc (USAF). One of my more ambitious colleagues was moving up and at one point said he was considering going to the ANG national bureau. I paused. He paused, then said, "yes, I'm considering going to *be part of the problem*". We both had a good laugh. Haven't dealt with the FAA medical branch yet (knocking on wood). Sounds a bit like medical academia, where a lot of docs go to get promoted out of useful work, and write nihilistic evidence-based medicine policy papers, or rename the same diseases every 5-10 yrs then harangue the rest of us about terminology. Not that I'm cynical. You could argue that a lack of common-sense representation results in institutional capture by overly-cautious people, and that that's a good reason for those of us who don't want to serve in a bureaucracy to ... serve in a bureaucracy. E.g. maintenance rules, fuel standards, etc. I wonder how it will go as a lot of old-timers with field experience further age out in some areas. Have you got your AME certification? If so, what's your experience been in being able to help people? I'm hospital-based, so don't really have a place to hang a shingle. But it might be a good way to pay it forward in the aviation community for me someday. Put it on the project list...

Hi, just saw another post that re-vivified this thread. I recently dealt with this problem, and got a lot of helpful advice, including to fill the cavity behind the capsule with RTV to prevent water freeze/thaw cycles from eventually dislodging the gauge: ) to

Yes, and this "foolish consistency" is what makes all the configuration changes so difficult to shove into my brain Consistency is a protection... Interestingly, the PIC IFR course manual, which I have found very clear-thinking about IFR flight, makes an argument to work out configurations so as to minimize the # of changes between any two adjacent flight configurations. E.g. approach level and precision descent, precision descent and missed approach. With this argument I could choose 120KIAS for all, but slowing from 120 to 90 to 75 at minimums is a juggling act... So again an argument for the 120->90 transition during the approach level phase. I recently tested both 90 and 120 "approach level" configurations. This adds an extra configuration but might be a clearer way to organize things.

I am really appreciating this discussion. I'm still trying to figure my SOP's, and torn between being flexible and accomodating and rocketing along the intermediate segments, vs. being slow and stable with minimum fuss during critical segments. 90KIAS gives time to think and prevents lots of changes inside the FAF, but feels like stationary after descending into the area closer to 200KTAS 120KIAS makes the math easy, feels fast enough to be sociable, but is above Vfe and requires a lot of adjustments during a busy time if carried *inside* the FAF. One technique I've been trying is 120KIAS to the FAF, then dirty everything up while the AP is still trimming for me. A couple of slam dunk 160-170KIAS-to-the-FAF approaches have been instructional, but feels like taking safety margin out of the equation. The USAF approach @Pinecone and @Ragsf15e describe seems the most robust to error, and I think would probably feel safer to me in the clag when tired at the end of a long trip. Maybe the solution for me is to compress the required changes closer to but still ahead of the FAF. One approach I've been taught is I think from the airlines, "gear down at the FAF or when cleared for the visual". I think I tend to practice gear down *no later than* the FAF or abeam threshold in a standard pattern, though sometimes earlier if maneuvering requirements are uncertain. I think any grey area here probably increases chances of a gear-up incident, but I'm still trying to plug holes in the workflow. As for changing gear vs. power at the FAF: I suppose you can make an argument for the power reduction alone as being better, since the throttle is a primary control that you will be "working" for an approach anyway (though if a perfectly thought-out stabilized approach you might barely move it, you're still "flying the throttle"). DK

Are you saying the dominant change in efficiency is due to (internal) frictional losses and aero drag? The intrinsic thermodynamic efficiency (expressed as BSFC) should be higher LOP. But some (I) may have been over-weighting that. The lower CHTs and cleaner burn, presumed better longevity, are the probably the reason I've been flying LOP most of the time. Have been experimenting with prop speed. It would stand to reason that a coarser pitch would better "fit" the higher airpeed, in the sense of selecting an appropriate gear. But friction is another argument, with slower being better. Another argument: I suppose the faster the prop tips go, the more non-linear losses you get... (that's a conjecture). Apples-to-apples would probably require working out a large matrix of power settings for a specific plane, ROP and LOP.

@AJ88V as mentioned above, the adjustments at the factory play a big role. My stall strips (FIKI'ed) were re-bonded at the factory right before I took possession, and they went over rig exhaustively (and adjusted a number of things), so I'm a bit spoiled as it's pretty clean and true. I still get very alert stalling at high deck angles... I'm told some planes can be fairly asymmetric. So... if there's significant doubt, you might want to get an experienced Mooney instructor/pilot who is familiar with the variations in stall rigging to fly the plane. As far as practical technique: - what seems to work for me is to be very alert on the rudder, watching the nose yaw ("walking" the rudders as necessary, not just booting in a lot of right rudder and calling it good) - have heard from others to set up the power-on stalls slowly, to get a saner deck angle, not just pitch up and firewall it HTH

IIUC there are only two ICAO types M20P and M20T, the difference is the latter being turbo (?). An experienced Mooney instructor listened to me describing my plane in detail on check-in and said "that's all very nice, just tell them you're a Mooney Turbo next time". I have made the mistake of saying the model designation early on, which confuses even the FBOs. For paperwork, it's "M20T" though these days with Foreflight and Leidos you can pre-enter everything in gory detail, including codes for ADF/ADF PBN-15 or whatever , so it seems like they usually have your stats. He warned me that I would be treated differently in a Mooney, higher expectations, so don't blow it. Have definitely heard more "what can you give me to the FAF?" type questions. What to say and how much to say seems like partly a matter of procedure and partly of technique. I think it's also different if you're in a tight professional airspace, busy uncontrolled field with 6 planes in the pattern, etc, or tooling around over the great West with the same CTAF freq. over many square miles. E.g. "last call", never thought much about it, but it was used intentionally (and helpfully) by a fractional who was coordinating with center when I was waiting for release behind him. Center wanted me to hold off calling, until he let me know on the ground with that switch-off call. Helpful, I suppose YMMV based on situation.

Mine IIRC has two thin rectangular slots, open at the edge. That way the screw head has surface to grab but a strong shove will deform it enough that the edge will pull past the screw. Having an open slot vs just a closed hole prevents needing to tear plastic to remove it in an emergency ( or a demonstration to passengers). Adjust the screws so there is friction but not super tight. If I get to the plane soon I'll send you a picture. HTH

Reminds me of the scene from "The Three Amigos" where Martin Short's (naïve) character is in a tough Mexican bar. He asks if they have beer, "no, we have tequila". "Is that like beer?". Pause, fairly unemotional delivery: "Sure.... it's like beer."

@DXB you are a man (?) after my own heart! The time I spent training in tailwheel/aero/upset was among the biggest bang-for-buck in my entire learning. I could actually fly airplanes well for a while... helped right before going to fly in Hawai'i's rather lovely crosswinds. I did mine at a serious aerobatic school next to where I was working/training in TX. Wish I had connections in eastern PA. If you have schedule control you might consider finding a school and making a trip. Just a thought. I know I usually can't. HTH, David PS. Have a great time, regardless! PPS. Actually, when doing some AF familiarization training (for flight docs) they flew an instructor in with a Pitts. I would imagine that's more expensive, but you might also look at regional instructors with their own planes.

Thanks! Very helpful responses. Two practical questions (for the FIKI Acclaim): - is it more practical to pull the batteries for testing? (Eg at home) - are there any labile "memories" in the plane that make it bad to pull both?

Capacity testing sheet above from Concorde says to discharge ideally at C1, which is 13.6 (Ah->A) for the Concorde RG24-15, so power = 24V * 13.6 = 326W. Most of the less expensive testers don't go that high. This one (https://www.amazon.com/KP184-Electronic-Precision-Capacity-Resistance/dp/B0CD7LM5R3/) does but is pricier that the one above. @EricJ mentioned on that thread that a "correction factor" could be applied if not done at C1. Does anyone know the proper method for that? (is it just "farther down" the capacity curve, which I would think is nonlinear, or something more nuanced). Also, if one needs 34V for a conditioning charge for a 24V nominal battery, than that would also push to a higher-voltage charger than mentioned above. DK

Keep laughing until the EMP happens... I'll still be happily checking off chores.

As one old guy once said, "C'mon man!" I want clicky buttons...You kids these days.

Oh my, I really want one. That is not just cool, it's astronaut/nerd cool. I'll bet we could hack up a re-configurable one with an El Gato streamdeck or similar.

To be clear, I did buy the plane with a higher-time engine, and these cylinders are original. The internet would have you believe they should have departed the aircraft already, either quietly in a shop, or loudly frog-marched out by the laws of physics over the mountains of Idaho. On the spectrum of things, this seems like better performance and life. Other cylinders have been replaced, and I don't know how the plane was flown before I got it. If these were needing replaced it wouldn't seem like an unreasonable lifetime (?) Just realize the whole cylinder-management discussion is a matter of significantly different opinions and evolving practice (I think you mentioned you read Mike Busch... my take on his position is that cylinders should not be replaced too readily, but are nonetheless a "consumable item"... it's like some kind of Zen koan). And again, many of the planes mentioned use Conti's, so not a differentiator. Unless the thread is pushing you toward a Bravo The comment about "if it's not one thing it's another" is sage. We all wish there were a magic maneuver that would obviate the need for maintenance and surveillance, but as the reliability-centered maintenance analysis indicates there isn't really a magic bullet as replacing everything might shuffle new jokers into the deck.

When they recently lapped my two oldest cylinders' (1450+ hrs, original) exhaust valves, and ring flushed, they also replaced one of the rotocoils. I asked about prophylactically replacing others, but was advised to keep watching. BTW this fixed the compressions and greatly decreased oil consumption over the next 25 hrs or so. Recently, a cyclic oscillation with a 30 sec period and about 25F magnitude developed on one of these, with the replaced rotocoil. It became intermittent the next flight but Savvy were concerned about a sticking exhaust valve (maybe incomplete lapping). Subsequent borescope didn't show anything wrong (original abnormal valve heat pattern had disappeared), so advice was to keep watching. I think there is a fundamental question of how much to do prospectively vs. "on condition". I brought up just overhauling both of these cylinders pre-emptively, as I have 400-600hrs to go before considering overhaul "based on the #s", and maybe this would be insurance... (I had been warned in the abstract I might need to replace these cylinders at some point). However, two experienced, thoughtful A&Ps after reviewing data and scope pictures were essentially saying it was a difficult question at the current juncture, and keep an eye on them every 50 hrs or otherwise on condition was reasonable. DK

At 1.5M aren't we getting to a point where the OP can get a turbine and glance down at us from the mid flight levels and say "I wonder what those people are flying?"

I thought of doing that! Did you use the Headsets Inc. kit? I used that on my old DC 10-13.4 years ago, thought of doing it for the child headset eventually... Now my kids are old enough to not quite fit but haven't provided replacement small aviation enthusiasts yet.

Hi All, Descending today on an approach, while running lists, I saw a weird low fuel indication for the L tank on my G1000, then almost right afterward a red "X", which flickered then stayed. I didn't dwell on it since I had independent assessments of volume and I was on a new approach in mid-level IMC and some smoke (wildfires, not my plane). On the logs saw it drop to zero, go high, then back to what might be sane (though red X persisted). I would imagine it could be anything (sender, wires, connector on the back of the Garmin EIS unit, grounding, etc). Any sense what's likely... what to check first? Or advice on approaching. Thankfully, my home-repaired wing capsule gauge is still there. That and the compulsive totalizer tracking... DK

Same here, or with a 1/4"-20 mount, or anything standard to be usable! I'll bet you can get a ball that fits that thread, too...