hazek

Well that's part of my concern basically. I said this: But no one commented. How can I know the bones are good? When and how can I check this. My annual is coming up in a few weeks. It'll be my first that I will be involved directly and stay at the shop for the whole time. Would this be a good time to check for any hidden corrosion?

Surprisingly, this is what hit me a bit earlier reading the replies to this thread!

Nice post. I was thinking about making the same one when I saw that video. And I already know who will chime in with his 6000+TT of Bravo experience advising to go Gear UP first to keep things simple Anyway, it was interesting to see in the real world how much drag each device produces. Would be cool to do the same test on our Mooneys. I might try this once just for fun. But if it's comparable it partially explains why at least the Bravo POH calls for the sequence to be: flaps APP gear UP flaps UP The mystery from the POH and in comparison to the video is why flaps APP then gear UP and only then flaps UP. My thought is, perhaps, at least in the Bravo, the reason is the pitching moment. Retracting flaps is an up moment and retracting the gear is a down moment. And since on a full power go around and trimmed for landing one would already be fighting a pitch up, retracting the gear before fully retracting the flaps can help fight it. Another reason might be that on the Bo the timings are different. I'm not sure but it seems to me their flaps and gear retract much slower than on my plane at least. I don't know how much of a protection to a stall is to keep flaps APP until gear is retracted but that could also be a reason for this sequence. In my limited practical experience that POH procedure seems to work well at least on the Bravo. Admittedly though I have not yet done a post flare and bounce go around but only a few go arounds still in the approach on short final.

Oh and I'm younger than the average Mooney, so just by age I could myself flying for many many years to come.

Some good points so far. Oostend and Antwerp in Belgium have already done it this year. And while the regional AOPAs are kicking and screaming about it, it does not appear a course reversal is happening. It may still come but this is a real danger. And given the stories of G100UL I don't consider that as a viable alternative. But like I said, flying with your own plane is anyway not a financially prudent decision so maybe I just have to accept the risk that this will last only 7 years more. This worries me because while it sounds good, it may not be true in my particular case. What if my plane has a hidden issue. I was thinking of actually going for interior/paint first that could uncover any hidden issues. And only then avionics if it turns out all is well. Is this silly? Am I worrying about the airframe too much? I notice there's some paint cracking, flacking on the right wing outboard leading edge and top side, I also notice some cracks in the fiberglass cowling.. Age is definitely starting to show on the airframe. While it isn't and I can afford it I'm still not in a position to just waste it. I still would like to make a decision that is somewhat sensible.

I'm wrestling with the question of how much to invest in my plane. A 1991 Bravo, still with the six pack, KFC150, original paint and interior. The only two modern avionics are the GTN650 and the EDM830. The engine has about a good third of its life left probably, hopefully. How does one make the decision to make a significant investment into an airframe as old as this? I'm talking about thinking to completely renovate the plane. Modern avionics, interior + paint job. New engine and a complete overhaul would probably cost about 300k. If I sold it and bought an SR22T I'd spend about the same and jump into the 21st century airframes. Wouldn't be a slick retract Mooney... but similar performance. Another worry is the end of AVGAS in Europe. We had two smaller Belgian airfields forbidding all AVGAS aircraft this year which was a major surprise and shock to everyone. The courts upheld it citing some European environmental initiative that hasn't even been implemented yet - apparently will be in 7 years. Should I be looking at diesel aircraft? I'd hate to fly a DA40 after flying my plane, and I can't afford a DA50 or DA42, let alone a turbo prop. Is there even anything else certified and not AVGAS dependent? Is it pointless to be prudent with money since this is money out the window anyway? Should I just keep running with what I have as long as I can, even if I can afford to splurge a bit? Or should I just splurge and what may come may come, YOLO and all that? I don't know how to think about this. Any input?

I think that's exactly what I see in the cockpit, the L ALT VOLTS is flashing at say 850 RPM which is above all the way to idle. I recently had both batteries die on me, granted 8 years old so probably lasted longer than meant to, but still, I wonder if this is proper operation. Bravo POH says: I'm wondering if during idling on the ground I was depleting the batteries and with most of my flights being on the sub 1h shorter side, they didn't get the proper recharge in flight. I don't use a batteryminder.

I noticed my voltage drops at quite high RPM and one alternator ALT VOLTs light stays on longer than the other at idle power. Is this normal:

How would you say has it improved your flying? Be as specific as you can please.

They're pissing on us and trying to convince us it's rain. Plain and simple.

Very good point! Thanks.

Wouldn't the mixture ignite in the hot exhaust causing the EGT to rise dramatically?

There is indeed a third option: I'm agnostic either way. I adhere to the POH and then the Lycoming best practices manual for my engine + an additional margin for a personal conservative approach on top. I do this because absent of hard evidence to the contrary, i.e. more than some anecdotes, I find that as the most credible source of information. I'm well aware though that the POH is marketing material, especially for the Bravo, so nearly worthless. And I'm also well aware that Lycoming's manuals in general are full of lawyer speak. On the other hand I know that metal expanding and contracting causes fatigue, this is established science and not up for debate. Also cylinders do crack and fail, this also cannot be up for debate, hell we have one such case in our closet at the club. So that's why my position is in fact agnostic. I take a conservative cautious approach to give myself the best possible shot at preserving my engine, which I value above convenience or comfort At the same time I follow what ever new evidence might come out to disprove manuals and show a better way and am open to adjusting. My only point of contention, which seems to bother people, is that I'm unconvinced that there is sufficient hard evidence to say that chopping power and allowing the engine to cool rapidly does not in fact severely impact the longevity of the cylinders. You say there is evidence and what you point to are nothing but anecdotes and fallacies. I just wish you'd actually supply evidence.

Where did I say that??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies Truth emerges under rigorous reasoning. Reliable conclusions rest on valid logic. Below, each quoted statement is paired with its logical fallacy. Appeal to authority (argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam) – an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it. Appeal to accomplishment – an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer. This may often also have elements of appeal to emotion see below. Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because a majority or many people believe it to be so. Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa. Argument from anecdote – a fallacy where anecdotal evidence is presented as an argument; without any other contributory evidence or reasoning. Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum, argumentum ad nauseam). I’m glad you’re open to data. I’m equally ready to revise my view if solid evidence contradicts mine. Until then, I hope these clarified fallacies help us keep the discussion on sound footing.

It didn't, at all. The only perhaps valuable evidence based nugget of knowledge this article has is what supposedly Kas Thomas has written some long time ago about some test stand data. My personal experience teaches me however that cooling rates of -50F/min are reached quite easily. At least on my engine measured by my EDM. The article is riddled with contrarian folklore and anecdotes. What I'm looking for is hard data and facts. Precise and hard answers to: procedures that were followed, exactly EDM data engine longevity data Anything short of analyzing that are conclusions which are not rooted in facts. That's another good nugget from the article: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” - Yes indeed, so what are the facts is my question! And I don't hear any.

Important point is that it did not drop to 0. This means combustion was still ongoing however under a very rich mixture. I had a similar experience on takeoff last year. Revving sounds from the engine, temps all over the place, reducing power brought it back to manageable for an immediate uneventful landing. On inspection nothing was found, on ground run nothing was found and this was my engine data:

A plugged air bleed in this range allows the exit of the fuel restrictor to be exposed to manifold suction, which effectively increases the pressure differential across the restrictor and causes an increase in fuel flow through that nozzle. Since this nozzle is now, in effect, stealing fuel from the other nozzles (injector servo output flow will remain the same) this cylinder will run rich and the other cylinders will be correspondingly lean. I read this as yes, three at the same time.

This actually indicates plugged air bleed of the injector: https://precisionairmotive.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/15-812_b.pdf

I would just like to see some concrete data from the engines of these planes and see exactly what the procedures they use are. Because a story is just a story. I could tell you the same story of our local jump club and their airvan but in reality they don't "just chop the power". They descend fast with power and keep cooling rate below a redline they chose. They also lean aggressively to peak to keep the temps up, use cowl flaps to precool and many other little things to reduce the shock of temp difference. An observer on the ground wouldn't have any idea about any of that and could be forgiven for spreading a story that they just chop the power and the plane is fine. I don't doubt the story, just want more details to see what exactly the story is. What were their procedures precisely? Any engine monitor data to see?

How do we know this is true? I doubt it's true. But I have nothing to go on. Do we have logbooks from his plane somewhere? Many times people make up stories you know..

I think I'll sign up for this, or at least ask for some advice.

Seems like no one else thinks so or wants to hear it

Can someone educate me why this isn't a solution?: Pitch up Slow below Vle Drop gear Resume descent?

Ok, maybe this is true. I mean we can only hope it is. I personally during my training had the same thoughts about a stall spin induced by trying to reflexively pick up the dropped wing in the base to final turn. I still don't know if I thought about this scenario enough not to do it. Unfortunately the human brain is very finicky when it's startled. Discussion sure, but the poll I find silly. I voted I would go around purely because I don't actually know what I would do. That option is missing in the poll.