deadbug

Thanks for all the info guys...

Greg, Cruiser, Thanks for your thoughts. I have flown behind these stock injectors for over 1500 hours and in spite of a brand new overhaul 130 hours (13 months) ago, it acts the same way lean of peak. I have been told it is very common with the Lyc IO-360s using stock injectors. I typically cruise at 7-9000 feet, at approximately 65% power 50-80 ROP and get fuel flow and performance right at book value (interpolating between best pwr/best econ). Just the other day I happenned to record the following EGT/CHT readings: 7000' MSL, OAT: +18C, MP/RPM= 22.9/2400, 60ROP,.....64% power according to the charts EGT/CHT #1 1351/378 #2 1289/362 #3 1338/374 #4 1294/356 What made me think about GAMIs was to equalize the "left bank" (2 & 4) cylinders to the "right" bank (1 & 3); as 1/3 are balanced and 2/4 are also balanced--but the left bank is definitely higher than the right. I thought the GAMIs would maybe help balance this out and as a side bonus, make LOP possible. Oh, BTW, was the GAMI tweaking difficult? My fuel flow indicator is a Hoskins 101 (old) and in spite of a new transducer, seems to indicate 1 GPH higher than actual.

My engine will not operate smoothly lean of peak. Has anybody here ever tried putting GAMIS on our little Lyc. I0360 4-bangers? I had heard over the years that they were not really effective on those engines. Just curious...

Quote: JimR ....but I see no reason to reserve the use of forward slips for life or death situations. They are just another tool in your aeronautical toolbox... Actually, Jim I agree wth you. I didn't mean to imply that forward slips were only to be used in life or death situations--In my previous post, I was referring (toungue in cheek...but I guess it didn't come out that way) to the long-body Mooneys (K and higher)...in light of Bob Kromer's bottom line for those operators in general. With that said, I have done many very aggressive and full forward slips in my J and earlier models both on my own (for fun making short approaches ;-) and while instructing without experiencing any unexpected negative aerodynamic behaviors. However, I only routinely taught them for use in the excessively-high-energy-during-the forced-landing situation when there was no further drag available--and S-turning back and forth wasn't an option. Bill CFII, ATP

For me, if I hear the current winds being called at a level that gives a crosswind component approaching 20 knots (including gusts) it gets my attention to prepare for a possible go-around situation. Similar to other posters above, I fly down final in a crab, transitioning to the conventional side slip (smoothly adding rudder to align the airplane with the runway with coordinated aileron input as necessary to eliminate drift) on short final approaching the flare. If I could not hold the airplane aligned with the runway with up to full rudder, then I would execute a go-around, and if necessary, divert to my "wind" alternate. Also, many times due to location of wind equipment, the actual conditions in the flare over the runway are far less challenging than the reported winds might indicate. Of course the opposite may occur also...ya gotta be ready. But, I would in most cases, give it a responsible look-see. I think the discussion about forward slips is a bit of a red-herring here. Forward slips have never been recommended as a crosswind technique; and as Bob Kromer mentioned, the longer body Mooneys (K and higher)..can get you in trouble at slow speed/high angles-of-attack. As a side note here, I have only utilized/taught forward slips during simulated/actual engine-out landings when EXCESSIVELY HIGH and all other drag options have been exhausted (full flaps, speed brakes) to get the airplane to touchdown and land successfully in the forced-landing site. Also, I emphasize "burying the nose" and keeping the speed up when accomplishing them in a M20J or earlier airframe (not K or later unless the alternative to not using the forward slip was unacceptable, ie. certain death) Bill CFII, ATP