Lood

WOW!! I have to agree - especially on the $30 part. IIRC, the Rosen visors are ridiculously expensive!

Cruise power settings are always WOT, 2500rpm and 75ROP. Climb power settings are always WOT, 2700rpm, target EGT (1250 deg on #1) I fly mostly from strips at around 4000ft AMSL and I normally cruise between 6500ft - 9500ft. This may explain the "low" power. The peak data.PDF is indeed extracts from 3 different flights and were taken after the climb, when leaning from the richer climb mixture setting to cruise. The times in the left most column of the .PDF are actually ZULU time and not flight time. I've read through the leaning part in the JPI manual again and I quote: "... by tapping the LF button. This tells the EDM to begin looking for a 15deg rise in EGT for any cylinder. Begin leaning the mixture without pausing. When a 15deg rise occurs, eliminating false peaks, the LeanFind mode becomes activated, shown when the cylinder dot above the hottest cylinder begins flashing." "Continue leaning slowly without pausing... / ... Eventually, one cylinder will reach peak before any of the other cylinders. The EDM will determine this automatically. Note that this cylinder does not necessarily have the hottest EGT." The way I read it is that the EDM will calculate and execute the whole leaning process by determining and working solely on the leanest cylinder. This will thus prevent one from leaning on the wrong cylinder and leaving the rest running leaner. So, according to JPI and regardless of the EGT difference between the cylinders, my mixture setting is 75ROP on the leanest cylinder, leaving the other three richer than 75ROP. My engine's leanest cylinder is #1, but it also runs the coldest of all ito CHT. Reading through all the replies, looking at the data again and having the hotter CHT's on the same side, tends to have me leaning towards a cooling or airflow difference. Could it be that the oil cooler, together with its oil lines that run just above and inside the cowl flap may cause some restriction, resulting in less air being able to flow through the left side of my engine? Quite possible, I suppose.

And on the other side of the argument, you have training airplanes that are notorious to reach their TBO on a very regular basis. They suffer from extreme power changes all day, every day...

Shadrach, I can see where you're going with this and it makes perfect sense - thanks. It seems crucial that I do the Gami lean test to determine exactly where each cylinder is running and when each actually peaks. Wrt the 75ROP, my procedure is as follows: After settled in the cruise, I hit the LF button on the JPI and start leaning immediately. Soon after, the #3 cylinder (on my engine) dot will normally start to flicker, which just confirms that the JPI is in "Leanfind mode" and has detected the leanest cylinder in the engine, which readings it will use to determine peak. Normally, at around 8 gal/hr, the JPI display flashes the "LEANEST" message which implies that I peak has been found. I now hit the "LF" button again and the JPI will display the actual degrees that the leanest cylinder is at. As there is a minor time lapse in the analyzer, my leanest cylinder is normally at -15LOP at that stage and then I start to richen the mixture. During this process, the JPI displays the actual degrees of the leanest cylinder and I lean that to 75ROP. As I understand it, the other 3 cylinders must thus be richer than 75ROP as the LF (ROP) process on the JPI works using the leanest cylinder. The confirmation in this will lie in doing the lean test and writing down the actual numbers and fuel flows for each cylinder. Each cylinder will peak at a different EGT and its number of degrees ROP will be determined from its own peak EGT and not that of another cylinder. That's my understanding. If your interpretation above is indeed correct, I am now VERY worried about the 37- and 26ROP on cylinders 2 & 4.

Below are data from 3 different flights. The extracts are taken at the exact point where the JPI determines peak and it seems that #1 is always the first to peak. If my assumption is correct, the other 3 cylinders are all running richer, no? JPI Peak data.pdf

Attached below, the climb data. Sorry about some of the data being cut off in my attachment above, I've changed the page layout and all data is now shown. JPI Climb data.pdf

@Cruiser: The probes have been verified to be connected correctly. I have not done the test on the new engine (new injectors) to determine the spread. 75ROP is determined by using the normal "Lean find" function and prescribed procedure on the EDM700. @Shadrach: Using the EDM700, #3's dot is the first to flicker when I start to lean - sometimes #1. I'm really not sure which cylinder actually peaks first. The spread on my previous set of standard injectors were 0.5 and although I haven't done the test on the new set, I doubt whether they would be so bad that some of the cylinders could be LOP while one is 75ROP. Certainly possible, but highly unlikely. I'll attach an extract of a climb where the mixture is probably close 150ROP, or at target EGT. I've never cruised at 125ROP, because temperature wise, my engine is actually running exceptionally cool at 75ROP and the only reason why I don't fly it leaner than 75ROP is to avoid high pressures and possible damage at say 50ROP, for instance. I have flown LOP on one flight for about 30 minutes and although it ran perfectly well at -15LOP, I'm just not comfortable with LOP. But let's leave that there. I don't want it to become another LOP vs ROP debate. I will try and do the Gami lean test this coming weekend and post the results here. That would certainly help a lot towards determining what's up with #2 on my engine.

The #2 CHT on my engine is running a bit hotter than the rest. I thought that I had a bad probe on #2 and replaced it with a new one, but the higher temp persisted. Although still way below the limit, it bothers me and even more so because it's one of the front cylinders. What could be the cause? A partly clogged injector, or maybe a bad spark plug? I would appreciate any advice. As additional information, I always fly WOT and 2500rpm at 75 deg ROP, except when loitering low level around the patch. I have brand new baffling all round that is in perfect condition. My engine has now done about 130 odd hours SMOH and the break in went very well. I've attached a .PDF with cruise flight extracts from 3 different flights. JPI Engine data.pdf

Sorry to highjack your thread, but while on the autopilot topic, what would you guys suggest I do in my F? It has never had anything autopilot installed, except for the original Brittain PC wing leveler system, but that was removed many, many years ago. I thought along the lines of something that I can build up over time and maybe start out with something like a wing leveler or something that can track the heading bug and then add as funds allow?

The fun starts when you start turning ...

I use the "Universal Fuel Hawk" tube on my '67F with 64gal tanks and have it calibrated in 10 liter increments on the chart that comes with it. I can give you those, if that would help. You can just convert it gallons.

+1 on the Concorde AXC

I never reduce rpm for the descend. I normally cruise between FL065 - FL095, ROP, WOT (always) and 2500 rpm. For almost all descends I push the nose over to establish a descend at around 400ft/min, as that's where my pax are most comfortable wrt their ears. The MP is normally somewhere around 21" and during the descend, I just keep it at that. Every 1000' or so, I will pull back a tad on the throttle to keep the MP at 21" and this has always kept me well in the green, without any major drops in CHT's. Where quicker descends are required, I just reduce power to around 19" and that's it. Our Mooney's are indeed slippery, but I've never had trouble getting down with the air speed running away. Come back on the power to around 17" and the descend rate becomes substantial, while keeping the speed in check.

This is indeed a real bummer. Happened to me last year and you're really in a catch 22 situation, simply because you don't know what's going on inside. So, good luck and I do hope that your decision, whatever it might be in the end, is the correct decision.

It was indeed a field overhaul and it was clear that every possible shortcut was taken to make it as cheap as possible. And that's why I decided to replace just about everything with brand new parts. I did investigate getting a reconditioned crank shaft and case, but I don't have any plans to sell soon, so I didn't want to run the risk and have either of these fail on me prematurely. Like here in SA, I'm sure you also get engine shops and then you get engine shops... Stay with the reputable guys with a good track record and this shouldn't happen.

This is what happened to me last year - exactly. We also discovered two hairline cracks during an oil change - by accident. Seeing that my engine had only done 700hrs SMOH, I decided to replace the crank case with a new one. However, once my engine was opened, it turned out to be a can of worms and the engine shop reckoned it would not have run for more than two hours. Although still running fine during the last flight, it was busy seizing. As mentioned above, once opened, it's yours. So, my overhaul ended up in building just about a brand new engine. I bought a new crank case, new crank shaft, new camshaft with all its goodies, etc, etc and I had all components replaced or overhauled as required to have the engine zero timed. In the end, it cost me a fortune, but today, 130hrs later, I'm VERY happy and my engine is running like a Swiss clock. Had I know beforehand, I would probably have gone the factory reman, but how could I have known? This is really a hard choice with many what if's, but as a direct result of my own experience, I would tend to lean towards the factory reman. That said, does your engine have 1500 hrs since new or SMOH and did you fly most of that 1500 hrs yourself? I have heard quite a few bad luck stories wrt factory remans as well. Good luck to you.

Although not a Bravo, I operate my F out of sand and dirt strips for 99% of all flights - that's all I have available on the farms. Wrt to grass, whenever any of you visit South Africa, please do yourselves a favour and visit Port Alfred. Apart from having the most expensive Avgas in the country, they are also among the top few when it comes to really bad runways and I mean REALLY bad. All the runways are grass and they can be extremely rough and uncomfortable - especially in a Mooney. Unfortunately, our local Mooney AME/agent is resident at Port Alfred and they probably maintain 90% of all Mooney's in SA. So, Port Alfreds' runways are used by Ovations, Bravo's and even Acclaims, all the time, without any problems. As long as the grass is not too tall and the surface is reasonably firm, a Mooney takes it in its stride. Holes and ditches are equally dangerous and bad to most airplanes.

As long as the grass is not too tall, you'll have absolutely no problems.

What did you guys replace these with? My mixture cable is not working smooth anymore and overall, my cables just don't look the part anymore so I'd like to replace them at some stage.

50 hrs or 6 months.

I use a Brightline bag. Don't know if it will fit between the seats, but it can be halved and it is a really nice bag.

Sabremech, do these fuel gauges use the original fuel senders inside the tanks or did you install new ones, dedicated to the Mitchell gauges? Both my tanks were resealed during the last two years, but nothing changed wrt my fuel gauges being themselves - indicating all over the place. apparently, the instruments shop did have a look at my senders and even tried to calibrate them, but without success. It seems that the problem lies with the sender units and I understand that they are sealed units which can't be opened up and fixed? Although I do have a very accurately calibrated dipstick and a just as accurate fuel flow on my JPI EDM700, I find it extremely annoying to have fuel gauges that are not working properly. Even though highly unlikely, but should an inflight leak occur, I will have no way to determine this.

I've just gone through this exercise. I've tried many solvents and even had my own version mixed at the laboratory of a chemical company. In the end, we scraped most of the sealant off by hand, using perspex scrapers of different sizes and it took three weeks to completely clean one tank. The best solvent that I used was Turco. It is approved for use on certified airplanes, but believe me, this stuff is extremely potent and no pleasure to work with. The MEK only really worked well, right at the end when there wasn't much sealant left. Good luck to you and rest assured that you are indeed going to expand your vocabulary during this project.

Same here with regards to the expected price drop and with the current ZAR/$ exchange rate, buying this 480 is simply not possible.

Not sure about the US, but here in SA, cellular coverage and thus internet availability in flight is very limited, if possible at all. Whenever you fly either a bit high or away from the main roads, along which the majority of towers are situated, coverage is very poor or non-existent. I've also found that the newer generation cell phones, like my previous Blackberry and current iPhone, a rather strong and constant signal is required. If the signal strength is only one, or even two bars while in flight, even sending a simple text message is not possible.