Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


jlunseth last won the day on July 6 2015

jlunseth had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

820 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. Let’s get clear what option we are talking about. GPS’s may query whether you want to fly the procedure turn (“course reversal”) or not. But that does not mean it is an option for you if you are on a clearance, allowing you to just pick one or the other to fly. In this instance, one TAA does not state “NoPT” and one does. If you approach in the TAA that says nothing, then ATC expects you to fly the procedure turn unless instructed otherwise. If you approach in the TAA that says NoPT, then you are expected not to fly the procedure turn. Complicating this, is local practice by the controllers and the fact that not all controllers know that this is the rule. It is best, when flying an RNAV, to tell the controller what you intend to do, and this generally requires a little judgment. If you are in the NoPT TAA, then I would not hesitate to fly the approach with NoPT without telling that to the controller. But if you are in the TAA that says nothing, it is always a good idea to announce. Where they get irritated with you, is if they have another aircraft coming in on an IFR plan, they (the controller) for whatever reason were spaced out on the fact that you are required to fly the turn, and then you do, which means they have to do something with the other aircraft. I have not seen an approach that says “PT NA,” the reference is usually that the Procedure is NA for arrivals at a particular IAF from a specified course or direction. Whether the GPS gives you the procedure turn as an option or not, has no bearing on your obligation to follow what is on the plate. Controllers make mistakes, but so do we, they pick us up and we pick them up. Cover both of your tails and let them know what you intend.
  2. Its possible the air/oil separator froze up. Water is made during the combustion process. The engine creates pressure in the crankcase and oil pan during operation, and the engine releases that pressure through the breather hose. The breather usually routes through an air-oil separator that causes the incoming air/oil mix to spin, which takes the oil out. The air then passes out the breather tube and the oil returns to the engine. This is normal. But at cold temperatures, the moisture can collect and freeze in the can (the separator), blocking the exit. The engine builds up pressure and pushes oil out of any available exit. It happened to me at 12 F, which is the range of your OAT (14F). The cure is to simply take your time on the tarmac after start-up, to allow the engine to warm the engine compartment, which warms the separator. I have been in the minus 50’s F at altitude and not had the problem. Taking off too soon on after start-up on a cold day will cause it. Same symptoms you saw, low OP high temp. It is a benign issue though, get the plane in a heated hangar to thaw the can, refill, clean up any mess, and give the engine compartment time to warm up next time. The separator is worth checking, but your photos are showing liquid oil and I don’t think the separator is the problem. It looks like a leak of some kind to me. When my air oil separator froze I got misted oil, gray streaks, about a foot and a half wide down the sides of the aircraft, not the liquid oil you are seeing. PS you are right to be concerned. High temp and low pressure signal a serious issue such as a blown seal or dying oil pump. Get it fixed before you fly anywhere.
  3. I had to make an epic emergency landing due to a quick drain, so yes, check the quick drain, but I don’t think that is your problem. The quick drain is at the bottom of the pan and all it does is allow the oil to be drained out. Even if the drain is failing, as long as you have sufficient oil in the sump and the system is otherwise working (screen is not plugged, pump is good, etc.), a failure of the drain is not going to cause what you saw. The problem a drain failure causes, is allowing all your oil out until it no longer gets picked up by the intake in the sump. Then you will see low or no oil pressure. If you had 5 qts. in the engine, that is not the cause. A drop from 6.5 to 5 qts. might or might not alarm me. If the plane had sat for more than a day, then the oil all drains into the sump. When you preflight and read the oil stick, then fly, about a quart of that gets redistributed through the engine, so 6.5 before flight might be 5 after flight. It is, though, a little much. The “loss” should be about a quart from before to after flight. From the looks of the nose gear door and the shiny spots I see in your engine pictures, it appears there is a leak of some kind. Have to trace it. They are not easy to find because the oil blows around inside the cowling in flight. What was the OAT?
  4. I was out at Willmar today and ran into Paul (Beck). Man, it was cold. But for whatever reason, running into him reminded me that he re-sealed my tanks 11 years ago. Back in that time frame I was new to Mooneys and put it down hard a few times. The tanks are still perfect. I am not going to tell you that you need to re-seal instead of patch, but if you decide to re-seal Paul is as good as they come. I have over a thousand landings on those tanks at this point and not a single sign of any blue.
  5. Yes, I can’t figure out what you are asking either. The magenta line you drew results in a turn of about 290, not 150. If the turn was 150, that means you were in the TAA at the bottom of the approach plate, in other words you were east of the line perpendicular through the approach course. That TAA is marked NoPT.
  6. The first time I tried the "60 second cool" was several years ago, shortly after I came back from the APS seminar where they talked about it. Two instructors were walking by the aircraft at the time and they told me later that there was fuel pouring out of the engine compartment as I ran the boost pump. Since then, if I push the pressure up to the stabilize point and then keep running the fuel pump for awhile, I will get a backfire. It may be the 231 and not other Conti's, but I can tell you that in the 231, running the high boost for an extended period will cause a backfire. I had the fuel system and pump rebuilt last year and found that it took less time to get the pressure up to a stable point. One of the first times I did that I kept the pressure on too long and sure enough, got a backfire. That had not happened for a few years. I watch the fuel pressure on my JPI and run it up to the point where the increase in pressure starts to slow down appreciably and stop at that. If the cooling technique works in your big bore go for it. One of the issues with the APS seminar, and I will say it was a minor issue, was that the guys at GAMI had limited experience with the small bore turbos such as the TSIO360 in my aircraft. They are Beech guys, and that is what is primarily used in the Bonanza, etc. I still have the course book at home, the last half of it is engine manuals from some of the popular large bores, but no manual for the TSIO360. I think the 360 acts differently than what their experience is. Supposedly, with the fuel at idle cut-off, the circulating fuel is pumped back to the fuel tank via a return line. I have the fuel system diagram for my aircraft, there is such a return line, but why excess fuel gets someplace where it can cause a backfire, I can't tell you. If the fuel is truly cut off, there should be no flow at all to the nozzles, and thus no fuel for a backfire, but for some reason that is not the case. I am just going from experience. I don't use the prolonged high boost run to cool the lines because of the backfire issue, and because I don't have to. If there is vapor in the lines and the engines fires, then starts to quit because of the vapor lock, I just push the hi boost switch in the "instant on" configuration (switch cover over the switch) and it will run the engine as long as I hold the button down and until the engine runs on its own. Starts first time every time under any conditions that way (except extreme cold).
  7. I was given some whiskey made from sweet feed for horses a couple of years ago. Really smooth, I was surprised. We had a bottle of young Balvinie along and the vote was it beat the Balvinie for smoothness and flavor.
  8. I suspect that you are getting the display of a piece of the underlying code, either for foreflight or for the chart. I have no idea what they are using for a language, and don’t really know what it is, but it looks like it could be a function or command in a programming language (search for and display something). A glitch, in other words. Can you tap on the airspace and get a pop-up description, or is that the pop-up that you see? Or a label in the code for a value.
  9. Yes, exactly. If you can hold MP steady as you vary fuel flow you can find a valid peak in LOP mode. There is a way to do it in my machine also, which I have described before, but it is just easier for me to make a setting that works, ignore the %HP on the JPI, and manage TIT by fuel flow.
  10. PS, the JPI percent horsepower algorithm is proprietary and JPI does not publish it, but on the lean side it gives the same result in my engine as the standard formula, 13.7 x FF/Total Rated HP. On the rich side it produces what is in the POH tables and graphs. Choosing LOP leaning vs. ROP leaning in the JPI, determines which power algorithm the unit uses. I have not found the %HP to be particularly accurate on the rich side in my aircraft, it appears to overstate power by about 8 percentage points. And it is too much effort to get an accurate peak on the lean side, so I don't use the LOP leaning function, I just lean to a power setting that I know and that works. JPI's LOP leaning would work better in your NA. I pretty much ignore whatever it is saying.
  11. Well, I wonder if those stats aren't affected at least to some extent by type of flight. I live in the midwest (Minneapolis). We have to go quite a ways to run into marine conditions (advection fog, etc.) or any significant orographic effects. My master bedroom is on the upper level, northwest corner of my house and I like to joke that there is nothing between me and Grand Forks to slow the wind down, or me an Alberta for that matter. Statistically, most of my flights are just local flights, larking around, shooting a few approaches, doing some landings. Being where I am, I might travel 50 miles in any direction to find and airport that is not being heavily used at the time, but I don't have to fly mountains or even foothills to do it. When I do these "larking" trips I pick a good VFR day. I do that because I can, why go flying for fun if I have to deal with even the threat of convection, or icing, or any of that stuff, and I am not going to go very high even though the aircraft certainly can. Nevertheless, I generally get a briefing on Foreflight by putting in a tentative route and hitting the briefing button. I can't say that I read all the stuff very carefully. I do look through it to see if there is anything that will interfere with a couple of hours joyriding and practicing. I do look heavily at METARs and TAFs, but also look at Nexrad on foreflight and look at the winds aloft, among other things to see if there is anything squirelly like high low level winds even though ground winds are not too bad. As I said, from a statistical standpoint, my focus would be on the things high on that list and I wouldn't bother with a lot of the rest of it, because I can see it with my Mark I and get back to the airport and on the ground in 15-20 minutes. Now, if I am traveling somewhere, even a relatively short somewhere like a 100 mile trip for lunch, or out to the Black Hills, or down to the Bahamas, that is an entirely different matter and I want to know everything. And then I have XM on the panel and will put the weather up and check ahead constantly for changes. But as I said, from a statistical standpoint, those flights may be a lot of my hours, but not a lot of my flights. So if the stats are related to checking weather at the start of each flight, for many of my trips, the full monty is not necessary.
  12. When the engine sits the fuel drains out of the lines. When you prime the engine, it starts off the priming fuel but when that is gone there is no fuel to keep running while the engine driven pump tries to get them full. The high boost is useful to refill the lines. Do you have a fuel pressure readout? If you do, pull the fuel to idle cutoff and the throttle closed. Run the hi boost until the pressure stabilizes at some number, don’t worry about what the number is, just run the pump until the number stops going up. Then make the MP and fuel flow full open. Run the primer for six to eight seconds. The high boost button is under a red safety cage, and if you leave the cage over the switch and just push the upper corner of the switch it acts as an instant on - instant off switch. You can use it that way whey you run the high boost to fill the lines, don’t open the cage, just push the top of the switch. Then when you engage the starter keep your finger on that switch. If the engine starts to fire but begins to wind down, hit the high boost again. That will keep the engine going until the mechanical engine-driven pump takes over. When the engine driven pump starts to work just take your finger off the hi boost button and the high boost stops. The one thing you need to know about any method involving running the high boost before start, is that it is possible to overdo it. Supposedly in a Conti you can pull the fuel to idle cutoff and run the high boost for a full minutes, which uses the fuel to cool the pump and fuel system and clear vapor lock in hot weather. There is an article out there by the GAMI/APS guys advocating this method. Don’t do it. Running the high boost any longer than it takes to stabilize the fuel pressure is the one and only way to get my engine to backfire, and you don’t want a back fire. Just run the pump long enough to get the pressure up. The number I get is 15.7 into the 16’s, it varies some every time. You are not worried about that, just that it comes up and stops rising. I use this method routinely, every start, it works in hot, cold, high altitude and normal starts. I have started the engine on a few occasions at zero when it got left unplugged by the line guys. I started it at Leadville this way when the POH procedure for high altitude did not work. It works every time, everywhere.
  13. The constant is 13.7 for turbocharged and 15 (14.9) for normally aspirated, according to my materials from the APS seminar.
  14. Having read all of these very edifying posts, I have come to a tentative conclusion concerning my original query, namely, what single malt Scotch must one drink to check-off one of the qualifications for ascending to the status of established gentleman aviator. My tentative conclusion is that it is not the Scotch. It is independence of thought, gently but firmly held, regardless of the equally independent thoughts of others of equal PICtitude and experience. Some are sadly not guided to single malt at all, which is misguided and a tragedy, but nevertheless it is possible to learn a great deal from those opinions, gently and firmly held. I am going to try me some sipping tequila I think, just for the sake of discussion and further progression towards the goal of becoming an established gentleman aviator of course. Oh, and I know to a certainty that no Mooney pilot ever flies in any condition of impairment, at least not any condition of impairment greater than he or she was necessarily in at the moment of their purchase of the heretofore above-named aircraft. Oh again, where the heck can you find a Lagavulin that is more than 16 years old? That would be a treasure.