jlunseth

I looked into the cost of adding TKS several years ago. Going from memory here, but I believe the weight is about 75 lbs and the cost was about 75k. Last time I looked, CAV was the party to contact but they were no longer doing the modification themselves, they would point you to a contractor who would do it.

Just to be clear, the climb speed I was referring to is intended to get you to 1,000 feet AGL, or whatever altitude in that vicinity allows the pilot to make the 270 degree turn to return to the runway. One of the things they did in creating that AOPA article was to practice the impossible turn, at a safe altitude, in order to determine how much AGL altitude the particular aircraft requires to make the turn, and it is a 270 turn to get back. I use 1,000 AGL.

@A64 In response to your climb rate note, there was a really good article in AOPA magazine a few years ago. The writer actually went out with a safety pilot and did some tests to determine when and if the impossible turn might work. According to their results - and if I recall the article correctly they had some other results on climb rate also- neither Vx nor Vy are very good climb rates immediately after takeoff. Vx is too nose high and in their testing, stall came too fast. Normal pilots, not expecting the engine to quit, would generally react too slowly to avoid a stall. Vy resulted in the plane getting too far away from the runway, so the impossible turn would not work out. What they landed on was a speed about half way between Vx and Vy, which works out to, guess what? Best Glide. So I always do my initial climb at 85 kts., which if you look at the Best Glide chart in my POH is in that range. I am a little inconsistent, if I am trying to stretch out a glide I generally use 82 kts. but when I am climbing out post takeoff I use 85, which gives me a little better cushion if the engine were to fail. In their testing for the article they required the pilot flying to wait for, as I recall, 3 seconds before "realizing" the engine had quit and pushing the nose over. They found that the pilot had the time to respond if the climb rate was at Best Glide, and even better, the plane was not so far from the airport that it was no longer possible to return. Sometimes I use a faster climb speed when I am out in a rural area where there are endless areas to land in the event of an engine failure, but my home base, KFCM, is pretty well hemmed in so whatever I can do to get to an altitude where a return to the airport is possible, that is the best choice.

My POH also has a graphical display of Best Glide and Maximum Glide Distance. The Best Glide table shows speeds as low as 76 at 2300 pounds and a high of 87 at 2900 pounds. I just use 81 IAS because it closely approximates the typical load when I am flying alone. Two things to remember. The most common fatal mistake in an engine out is to sit there dumbfounded, nose high during takeoff. You need to be spring loaded to drop the nose every takeoff to avoid a stall. Second, during practice for my commercial and working on circling a spot on the runway for an engine out landing, I found that best glide would sometimes trigger a stall alert. Makes sense - stall at a 60 degree bank angle is 90 which is higher than best glide, and on top of that, when flying with an engine out there is no prop draft over the wing helping the wing not to stall. So if I tried too hard to make my descent shallow I could get into a stall situation. Stall trumps Best Glide Speed so drop the nose as necessary even if that means breaking best glide. There have been alot of discussions in the Forum about prop effect. From what I recall, the Best Glide chart assumes a windmilling prop. It is possible to stop the prop, it requires a quick pitch up and then dropping the nose to avoid a stall, and it increases glide distance. Don't recall the number. I have put this in my memory bank if I am ever in the flight levels and needing as much glide range as possible, but I have never practiced it and don't think I would try it at lower altitudes because of the stall risk.

There are several reasons I have kept my XM, but the most important to me is the ability to look out a few hundred miles. I have used that many times for in-air flight planning in light of rapidly changing or unforecast conditions at a destination a long way away.

There is a video out now of the landing. https://www.foxnews.com/world/delta-up-side-down-plane-crash-toronto-airport-marks-north-americas-4th-major-aviation-disaster-month Geez, it looks like the plane came in a little flat but nothing spectacularly wrong until it contacts the ground. Looks like a gear collapse or possibly a very hard landing causing the collapse, then a wing hits the dirt and shears off, and then the plane just rolls over. Does not look like gust was a factor.

Well, I don't know why we are having a discussion about landing with the mixture lean or rich. It may be a worthy topic, but we have not heard from VA Flyer what he is doing with the mixture, so it could just as well be an engine issue. All we can really say at this point, from the information provided so far, is that it appears to be an overly lean mixture. But why?

Don't know if this is your issue but might give you a clue. I fly a 231. The turbos are generally set up very rich and on final approach I generally need to lean the engine out to keep it from burbling. It burbles because the engine is overly rich but making very little power. If I lean it out the burble goes away. When I get to the tarmac and start to roll out I have to remember to put the mixture back in. During the final descent the engine can be very lean but won't quite because the descent is helping the prop and driving the engine. When the engine is no longer getting that help on the tarmac it can stop unless I enrich it. Hence varlajo's question. If you are intentionally lean during the final approach the prop can stop during the rollout unless you enrich the mixture. That is what you are doing when you hit the boost pump. Instead, just push the red stick in. Whether you are leaning during final or not, but boost pump gives you your clue. The engine stops because it is too lean. It was fine during the descent when the descent was helping the prop, but that stops when you are on the ground. Need more fuel.

My fuel ranges are 13.3 ROP or slightly higher (depending on temps) at 125 ROP and 11.1 or slightly lower when LOP for the same airspeed. Airspeed for my aircraft varies quite a bit with altitude, usually around 155 kias when down low. I would definitely not recommend running at 50 ROP unless below 65% power. The “normal operations” low temp for the 231 is 240 dF although it can be difficult to keep all cylinders above that number when it is really cold (like today). 231 operators need to keep oil temp above 100 dF. The only consequence I know of for running with low CHTs is poor lead scavenging, which would affect the plugs and the valves.

Hey folks. The word "troll" comes to mind. Ten whole posts and almost all are on the idea that all of GA should replace all of its engines. Really not worth responding to.

The redline in the POH is 460 and that is the limit that the aircraft was certified to. JPI is required to set the redline limits to what is in the POH in a JPI unit that is STCd primary. That is why the JPI has that limit and they cannot change it. As mentioned, 460 is not good. That will hurt your engine pretty fast. The conventional thinking is that CHT's should be kept at or under 380 dF for best cylinder life. That said, it can be pretty hard to keep all cylinders in a 231 under that number under all conditions. I have recently replaced my engine, but with the old engine I had one cylinder that liked 400 and all the rest were around 380 in cruise. The 400 dF cylinder was the one that had low compressions first as the engine aged. I should say that, running LOP a great deal and with 380 as the goal, the engine was a few hundred hours over TBO when I replaced it. During a high hot climb - meaning out west in the summer and a climb to the teens or higher - I would occasionally see up to 420 until I was able to level off. As we have discussed in this forum many times, you need full power full rich for such a climb and the fuel flow per the POH should be 22.5-24 GPH. From experience it is difficult to get A&Ps to set it right, they are usually on the low side, which causes high temps in those climbs. Some of us try to get the A&P to set to 25 GPH. You can always dial it down as the pilot, but once set on the ground you can't dial it above where it was set. I found that cooling was part of the problem. I had some places where the baffling did not seal to the cowling because it went around a curve and was dimpled. When the new engine was put it I had new baffling installed and all those things corrected, and it really helped with the one or two cylinders that always ran hot.

Far and away the best place is on the left side, between the six pack and the GPS/radios. There are many reasons for this. I think pretty much all of us who fly instrument, in particular, have found that it is invaluable to have the engine monitor in the pilot side scan. You will see problems when they first show up rather than catching them too late. Has saved my bacon more than once. The left side is particularly important in the 231 since that will be your primary for manifold pressure, and you need to dynamically monitor MP during your takeoff. Having the MP readout over on the right side, so you have to look away from the runway during takeoff, is a recipe for problems. Here is my 231 left side panel if it helps. I have changed this in the last few years, putting in two GI275's in place of the HSI, AI, and taking out the TC which is also in the 275s. If you noticed, I also put the annunciator for the autopilot in the pilot side scan. If a problem is happening with the AP especially during an instrument approach I can see it immediately. This layout puts everything critical to the operation of the engine and to the flying of an approach directly in front of the pilot. Can't take all the credit, my avionics guy at FCM, Modern Avionics, suggested it. The right side now has secondary things like the transponder. A picture of the original panel is also below so you can see the difference it makes. In the old picture I had installed an MP gauge in the pilot side after buying the aircraft, the original location in many planes including my original was on the far right side of the panel, which was worthless for takeoff in the 231.

Mine work. Had to get a new bulb installed a few years ago, that did it. Not simple I don't think, the center console cover has to come off. I did it during some other electronics work that was going to require the cover to come off anyway. I don't think there is a light for the O2 gauge, if yours is in the left armrest like mine. If there is, mine has never worked.

Well, and remember there is the getting home part too. So if you fly to a small rural airport and don’t have everything with you that it will take to start the plane and fly it home, it will sit where you last left it until spring thaw. So whatever method you are going to use to defrost the surfaces, you need to have that with you in the aircraft like Pinecone says. If you are going somewhere that has a robust FBO they probably can deice, you probably have the choice of hangaring inside, and they probably have a propane heater to warm the engine. Many airports do not. I have run into situations where, if you did not call ahead, even the better FBOs can’t help. I made an unplanned stop in Flagstaff last spring and asked to have the plane hangared overnight. They could not, the hangars were full. Got an inch of freezing rain and then crusty snow overnight. I got lucky though, the sun came out and helped clean the plane. Whew!

Yes, we were talking about removing frost that forms on aircraft on the ground in cold weather.