• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


jlunseth last won the day on July 6 2015

jlunseth had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

684 Excellent

About jlunseth

  • Rank
    Won't Leave!

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Reg #
  • Model
    M20K 231

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi all. My plane has been in the shop for the annual and CiES senders and I have been working my tail off, so have not been here much. %HP when LOP is fuel flow in GPH x 13.7 divided by rated HP (210 for the 231). Everyone should know that by now. The JPI uses that formula when LOP, or at least that is the way it appears to me. I saw some posts wondering how you know you are actually LOP. Using the JPI’s you can’t start on the rich side, pull everything over to the LOP side, and expect to have a good “degrees lean of peak” reading because in the 231 too many things are moving around. In the aircraft that control MP so it is constant when fuel flow is reduced that is possible, but in the 231 a change to MP changes fuel flow and vice versa, so by the time you get from the ROP side to the LOP side everything has changed and the peak reading you got is no longer valid. The one way to do it and get a decent number is to get the engine running on the LOP side for sure, say 10 GPH and 32-34”, and then use the JPI in Rich of Peak leaning mode to enrich to peak and back. Rich of Peak mode does not actually know whether you are rich or lean of peak. It is JPI’s way of determining peak by measuring the first cylinder to peak, and if you are already on the lean side and enriching back to peak, that is what you want. Then when you lean back again, you are measuring degrees from peak by the cylinder that is closest to peak, making sure all the rest are further away. This is still not perfect, because as I said, when you make a change to fuel flow or MP in the 231, it changes other things. But it is reasonably accurate. Once you are confident you know what a good LOP setting is, then just use MP and FF to make it again the next time, its simpler.
  2. Why whoa? There is a lot of data there. Loss of power on approach happened 9 times and caused no, as in zero, fatalities last year. So where is the excuse to fly a tight pattern “so you can make it to the airport if the engine quits?” What causes the stall/spins is tight patterns, causing tight banked turns downwind to base and base to final. One could say that the numbers are small, so how statistically signficant is 9? The issue with that is that the Nall report has come out since the 50’s, and while the total accident rate has come down, the numbers from prior years say the same thing. The “ringer” as far as I am concerned, in the Nall reports, is that they include experimental in the category of GA. They used to do that, but break out the numbers for experimental and the numbers were very high compared to the rest of GA.
  3. We have had a few threads lately on the subject of takeoff and landing accidents, and takeoff, landing and approach techniques. I got a notice of a WINGS program with links to the most recent Nall report, which is the 2015 report. The full report breaks accidents down into categories, such as (1) takeoff and climb, (2) landing, (3) maneuvering, and (4) descent and approach. There is an AOPA Scorecard report for 2016-17, but it has totals and not the full breakdown, so it is not as useful. I recall that a few years ago there was an issue that accident cause determinations by the NTSB were not complete when the annual Nall report was coming out, so the Nall report, which used to be delayed by a year, is now delayed by two years. Looking at the '15 Nall report, the statistics are interesting and, I think, should factor in to how we fly our aircraft. (Unless specified, all the numbers are for GA fixed wing only, there are separate categories for commercial, and for rotorcraft in the report). Total GA accidents of all types 967 Takeoff and climb accidents 108 total/ 19 fatal 11% of total accidents/17.5% fatality rate Maneuvering 44 total/32 fatal 4.5% of total accidents/ 73% fatality rate Descent/Approach 43 total/15 fatal 4.5% of total accidents/ 35% fatality rate Landing 262 total/3 fatal 27% of total accidents/ 1% fatality rate The percentage of total accidents should be looked at as just a relative comparison. It depends as much on how many categories the accidents are divided into by the reporters as anything else, but when you see that, for example, takeoff and climb accounts for 11% of accidents, and descent and approach is 4.5%, you get a relative measure of which flight regime causes the most problems. Landings is the winner at 27%, the highest of all the categories, but also far and away the least likely to be fatal. The categories are broken down further, and that is the interesting part. Takeoff and climb have 8 subcategories, but of those, loss of control accounts for 40 accidents and stall or settle on takeoff accounts for 36. The others are relatively insignificant. Further, loss of control on takeoff resulted in 4 fatalities, so 10% of the time that type of accident is fatal. Stalls resulted in 9 fatalities for a 28% fatality rate. Stalls on takeoff are the biggest danger. LOC on landing results in alot of accidents, but a small fatality rate, somewhat similar to the LOC rate on takeoff although the takeoff fatality rate is higher. Maneuvering results in a moderate accident rate, but a very high fatality rate - stalls again being the major risk, causing 55% of maneuvering accidents with a very high 91% fatality rate. Descent and approach, also a moderate accident rate and what I consider to be a high fatality rate at 35%. The subcategories for descent and approach are what is interesting. There are four subcategories, (1) stalls/spins, (2) collisions, (3) deficient instrument approach procedures, and (4) loss of power. For purposes of deciding what is the safest way to conduct a standard approach and landing, you can kick out deficient instrument approach procedures and focus on the other three. The leading cause is stalls/spins, which accounted for 13 accidents, 5 of them fatal, for a fatality rate of 38%, which is uncomfortably high. Collisions were second accounting for 11 accidents, 2 fatal. And loss of power? Guess what. 9 accidents and zero fatalities. So much for the ole "tight pattern" propaganda. Tight patterns are advocated so that, in the event of an engine failure in the pattern you can "make it to the runway." But they are rarely if ever fatality. What causes pilots and their passengers to die at an uncomfortably high rate, is a stall/spin during the approach. Your odds of that happening at all are slightly higher than a loss of power, and your odds of dying from it are 35 times higher than a loss of power. The overall accident rate is down, but pilots are still the biggest cause at 73.5%. Here are links to the 2015 Report and the 2016-17 Scorecard. http://bit.ly/2JL1nxM http://bit.ly/1617GAscore In general, when you look at the accident rate for stalls during maneuvering, during takeoff and climb, and during descent and approach, the biggest risk of dying is from stalls. Fly your takeoffs, climbs, approach, and descent to avoid stalls and the fatality risk goes way down.
  4. Two things. First, if you are in the mid-80's, even in the high 80's, you are severely impaired and probably on the verge of passing out. I am going to take a guess that, since you don't feel that way and haven't passed out, there is some kind of issue with the readings you are getting because they are way too low. My bottom line is 92% and at that point there is probably some mild hypoxia, there definitely is hypoxia at 90%. Second, you have not mentioned what type of cannula you have. There are two, the "Oximizer" and the normal one that is the same as what you see at the hospital. The Precise Flight gauge has a scale for each of them. I have the Oximizer type, but from pulse oximeter readings it became obvious as soon as I got them that there was no "enhancement" effect. I use the gauge scale for normal cannulas on the Precise Flight control, not the one for the Oximizer, which means turning the flow knob on the Precise Flight up a fair amount to get a good flow. Given your levels, I would suggest you just turn it way up until you figure out what is going on. I guess there is a third. Above 18k the pilot needs to be on a mask. Its a little inconvenient because eating and drinking is a problem, but oxygen supply is better and it does not dry your nasal passages out like a cannula will.
  5. My home airport is under a Bravo shelf of 3000, and I fly instrument quite alot, clearance always instructs to climb to 2,500 MSL. The airport is 906, so 2500 is 1600 AGL. Since I do that so much, just by force of habit I make the “best glide speed” climb to 2,500 whether I am IFR or VFR, and after that if I am going up further, I moderate the climb to 500 fpm, which is around 120 kts. true. I will climb all the way to cruise altitude that way, whether its 8,000, or 18,000, or 21,000. Need the airspeed to keep the CHTs cool. After 2500 its academic, I am far enough from the airport that if the engine were to stop, I would need to find somewhere other than the airport to put it down.
  6. Good for you. I had a loss of oil pressure incident on the way to a Mooney PPP and had to make an emergency descent to landing (which I have written about here). When I got there they wanted to teach me to spiral down to a landing, and tried to convince me that is what I should have done. I chose to dive rapidly from 19k. I liked my choice better and still do. 75+ kt tailwinds at altitude were blowing us out over the next Great Lake (Huron) in a hurry, the airport was about 20 miles, and I had to get through some high IMC to see the airport. I am glad I learned the spiral down, but my choice was way better under the circumstances, and that is the thing, we should not be so rigid as to think that exactly the same solution will solve every scenario.
  7. Amazing. Mass agreement in the forum. Now, are you climbing leaned out or full rich.....
  8. I do my climb out the same way, but came at it through different calculations. Vx is 71 kts, and Vy is 96, so my theoretical “Vz” is 83.5. That’s approximately the number I use but my number is based on an article in AOPA magazine a few years ago. The author actually ran a series of tests of what would happen in the event of engine loss on departure. Vx was not best for two reasons. First, they concluded that on average, a pilot does nothing for at least three seconds after engine failure, and in the attitude required to make Vx, the loss of airspeed is too high, the aircraft gets too close to Vs. Vy was not best because it took too much time and distance to get to turn-back altitude. You could make the necessary 270 turn without screwing it into the ground, but could not make the airport. They found best glide was best. So that is what I use, best glide. Best glide varies in my aircraft with gross weight from 81 to 85, I just use 85. The plane accelerates to best glide pretty quickly once I get the gear and flaps up, I don’t wait with that any longer than necessary to get a positive climb rate. Turns out best glide is useful for all kinds of things. It provides a good deal of margin from stall, so during takeoff and climb out, in the event of some kind of weather anamoly that causes airspeed to instantaneously drop, I am still a good 10 kts. above stall. Base, and base to final, it gives me a buffer from a steep bank stall in the event of a too tight turn. I would stall at 60 degrees, but not at anything reasonable. So far, it has worked good.
  9. I had two LEDs installed in my K probably 8 years ago. I don’t have a clue what they are, but they sure reduced the current draw to practically nothing, and that was a problem with the combination of the old strobes and the old landing lights, and the issue with charging at idle in the 231. Night pattern ops would run the battery down. At any rate, I turn them on as soon as I come into the Bravo ring around my home base. I have around a thousand hours in the aircraft since the LED landing lights were put in, and no sign of a problem.
  10. Yeah, I am not sure about that Paul. I turn mine off. I am just repeating something I heard years ago, that it shuts off below 8k. But if you don’t lose O2 when you forget to shut it off, that proves it I guess.
  11. You have to turn the system on, not just the flow at the Precise Flight flow meter. There should be a pressure gauge somewhere to tell you that you have O2, and then there should be a valve mechanism. On my aircraft it is on the pilot side "door" (there is no door there, but if there were, that is where the system valve and pressure gauge are). It is a knob that you slide forward, that opens the O2 system flow valve. Check to make sure you have pressure (i.e there is O2 in the tank), and the Precise Flight male fittings have two little pins perpendicular to the plug, the fitting must be pushed in with the pins in the slots in the door fittings and then turned until the Precise Flight fitting stops. Even if you do all that, you may have to take the aircraft up to at least 10k to test the system. There is supposed to be an automatic flow shut-off that starts flow at 8k (and obviously stops flow below that). PS Here is what is in my POH (its in the "Supplemental" section). "...while at lower altitudes the reducing valve automatically economizes the flow to conserve oxygen for longer duration or for future availability, without requiring any action by the pilot." The "reducing valve" appears to be the first stage regulator (the regulator on the tank). I don't remember for sure where I got the information that it shuts completely off at lower altitudes, that was years ago, but I believe it was a discussion on this site. Probably nearly a decade ago. Here is the plug with the little pins. Goes all the way in, then turn until it stops.
  12. I always say “taxi for VFR takeoff” when I am going to be VFR, but never “IFR takeoff” because I am talking to ground and they just gave me my clearance. Since ground must gave me my clearance, I never say “IFR takeoff” to tower because they already know. Never been an issue. But I think if I were to get a clearance by someone other than ground, such as by email, I would tell tower just to make certain they know. 99% of the time, there will be a “hold short for IFR release” which tells you they know you are IFR. On rare occasion they are ready for you, don’t give that instruction. Also, 100% of the time you will get something like ”turn to 330, cleared for takeoff runway 28,” which might tell you that you are IFR except that about 1 or 2 % of the time you will get the same instruction when taking off VFR because they have traffic and can’t let you just fly your own course. So in a normal exchange as I am used to it, the only way you know 100% that they have you as IFR, is to get that clearance from ground/clearance. When ground says “cleared to,” that means they have put you into the system, and so even if tower somehow missed that you are IFR, when you go over to your departure frequency they have your flight plan and you are good. But up in the tower, when ground gives you that clearance, you got put on tower’s board as an IFR flight.
  13. If you go on the TCM website and price a new or reman LB, you will see that you get to choose mags, Slick v. TCM mags. Both are now pressurized. Then, of course, the engine goes into the aircraft with those mags, which is what leads me to believe that unless something is listed in the TC, it is up to the engine manufacturer what goes on to a particular model of engine.
  14. Amend that. I found the TC and the mags are not mentioned at all, although the ability to substitute the LB for the GB is (Note 17 of the TC). I think where you will find the information on the mags is at TCM, the engine manufacturer. Type of mag is one of the choices you can make when buying a new or reman engine.
  15. Is your engine an LB by chance, or a reman GB? This is just a guess, but the engine was modified to incorporate the pressurized mags, and you could put a reman’d GB or an LB in the plane at TBO. Those would include the pressurized mags and probably that is in the Type Certificate for the 231, not in a Supplemental Type Certificate. I would go on the FAA website and look at the TC. I think that is where you can find it, that’s what I remember, it has been awhile since I have had a reason to look. My engine is a 2002 reman and has the pressurized mags. I am sure they simply came as part of the engine, it is an LB.