jlunseth

Cellular all the way. As mentioned, it is the only way to get GPS. I have generally traveled a lot, at least until the end of last year when I retired. I land and takeoff from many small rural airports flying for Angel Flight. Some still do not have WiFi, never know until you get there. So I just switch the cellular on and get my briefing, file my flight plan. As for the GPS, among other things that adds a little blue airplane to all my EFB charts including the approach I am flying. Great for situational awareness. Then when I land I get Maps to drive wherever I want to go. Text clearances from ATC. What’s not to like. Couldn’t imagine being without cellular and GPS. I have a “max data” plan though, so I have to switch cellular off and on in order not to blow the data limit. Does not affect the GPS.

Me too. Every excuse to raise the rates. I raised the hull value last year because the plane market is up nicely from when I bought the plane. One claim for hail damage ten years ago (plane was on the tarmac, damage was $1,200). No accidents, 2,000 hours, commercial instrument. $5,000 last year and probably more this year. They are pricing me out.

I also climb full power, full rich to whatever cruise altitude I intend to fly. That can be a prolonged operation, as much as 45 minutes if going to the 20's. That is not to say it is the best way to cruise an engine though, it is just the best way to climb over other methods that result in high temps. The POH also says you can push the cylinders to 460 dF as a redline but that does not mean you should, and I can tell you from personal experience when I first got my aircraft the engine won't melt or come apart, but it also is only good for about that one flight before needing major work. I am sure if your A&P sets the fuel flow high enough you can probably run near full power at cruise and still keep the temps cool, but why? - unless you like paying fuel bills. That is sort of the point of cruise power settings, one of the points anyway, that is - it takes an awful lot of fuel to push the power up to the limit for what, maybe a 10 or 15 knot advantage? There has been quite a bit of experience with pilots flying all the turbo Mooney models at full throttle just to get the speed. I am not an A&P, I don't do the overhauls, but I have heard way too many stories from A&Ps who do about turbos run to the max needing top overhauls and/or turbo overhauls at an early age. Don't believe everything you read in the POH. There has been a bad history of outcomes where the POH says something that marketing wanted, but that sacrificed engine life.

I don't know about the rest of you, but in Private Pilot lessons I was taught to always check for traffic on an intersecting runway before crossing, both approach and take-off, even if you are cleared to cross (or think you are cleared to cross).

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.

I would certainly go with cheaper. I have not tried what you suggest. All I can add is that when TKS first came out, the immediate question was whether it would corrode parts on an aircraft. The discussion I remember is that the fluid would run back and embed in things like aileron and elevator joints, where there are different metals. I have not ever heard of that happening with TKS and I imagine (but do no know for sure) that it has been tested and found non-corrosive. Something not tested for aircraft use would be an unknown. I just don't know what the effect would be, can't say one way or the other. RV antifreeze is supposed to be safe for the environment, we use it in our sailboat every winter, but what its effect is in multi-metal situations I just don't know.

I have not inventoried the many things in the engine compartment that are not a part of or directly attached to the engine, but there are probably several other than the air/oil separator on which I learned my lesson. The brake reservoir and related stuff is probably happier if the fluid is not completely congealed, etc. I liked the earlier post about warming the entire plane in a hangar which would warm everything but it raises another issue. A few years ago we had a really excellent pilot/instructor who put on Saturday morning seminars at Modern Avionics at KFCM. He did one on cold temp ops. One of the things that stuck with me was the choice between heat soaking and cold soaking an aircraft before a cold weather flight. So, basically, icing occurs when the temps are between +5 and -15 degrees. Warmer and no ice is likely, colder and any moisture has generally already found a way to freeze in the atmosphere. So if, for example, one wanted to take off and fly through a thin layer of clouds with possible icing, which we get around here quite a bit during the winter, and the ground temps are at around freezing, warm soaking the plane in a hangar the night before would help. The airfoils would be warm at takeoff and would discourage the formation of ice. But if taking off in super cold temps and, say, climbing into the flight levels, cold soaking is preferable because having warm surfaces would melt the ice crystals onto the wings where they refreeze into icing, whereas cold surfaces would not have the same effect. I don’t have a choice to warm soak so have not practiced this alot, and the pilot/instructor was flying turbine aircraft at the time so the issue is somewhat different than what we piston pilots experience, but I thought it was worth mentioning. Oh, and don’t forget to bring a windshield scraper/brush and a rag. I have had frost form on the wings in International Falls at -10dF in about an hour. Even better would be a garden sprayer with TKS.

I live in Minnesota so experience pretty much the same temps as you, although I am in the Twin Cities area so a little warmer but I get up to International Falls in the winter once in awhile. I have a 231, which is turbocharged, and the consequence of that is that I need to be very mindful that the Oil Temp does not fall below 100 dF, which it can do in cold conditions. The turbo bearing needs oil and the space for oil passage is very thin, so the oil must be thin enough to lube the turbo. I always preheat if the temp is below 40 dF. I call my FBO the night before and have them plug the plane in (engine heater). I can start it down to about 20 dF without preheat, but am told that creates unwelcome wear. Below 20 it is pretty hard to get the engine to start and there is a risk of wearing down the battery. I never open the cowl flaps for any purpose in cold temps. Sometimes the East Coast people will jump in and say, oh heavens, what about hot spots! Cold for them is anything below 40. I will take all the hot spots I can get, whether during starting, runup, taxi, or in the air. The problem we both have is that we are around sea level in elevation and the air in winter, especially below about 5,000, is very dense and very cold, making it superior for cooling, which is not ideal for an air cooled engine. I have my A&P install an oil cooler block when it starts to get cold. They have made me a couple, they are just thick foam bound with duct tape that is stuffed into the cooler. Definitely helps with the OT, although it is still possible to get an OT that is too cold. If necessary I will run ROP and as close to the red box as I dare. I attended the GAMI live seminar several years ago. The whole point of LOP operation is to flatten out the power curve during the combustion cycle to avoid a high peak ICT, which is what happens when operating in the red box and what causes high CHT's. They warned that CHT alone is not a good measure of peak pressure in very cold temps, in other words, you can still get the high peak ICTs you don't want even if the CHTs look ok. My normal ROP operation is 125 ROP, I will go as low as 100 in cold temps. I ran my last engine out to several hundred hours past TBO so apparently did not hurt it much if at all with this method. One thing not mentioned is that during cold temp ops it is very important to warm not just the engine itself, but the entire engine compartment. I learned this the hard was practicing fast approaches and landings for an anticipated trip to our local Class B airport. The air/oil separator generates moisture. The moisture all froze, blocking the breather. I got unusual temp readings during a takeoff, returned immediately for landing, and had oil streaks about 18" wide running down both sides of the aircraft. The fix for this is to dawdle before first takeoff, keep the cowl flaps closed, spend about 10 minutes on your checklist and runup. Have not had a problem since that episode many years ago now. I have operated in extremely cold temps because in the 231 I can fly in the flight levels. It is almost always below zero up there. I made a very fast trip from Williston ND to Minneapolis once at 21k with the temp at -54 dF (great tailwind). It was so cold that with the heater and defroster full open, all the windows were frosted and I was operating on instruments. However, I kept the engine amply warm and had no problem other than the cold in the cockpit. I have not used ISO in the fuel for many years, but it is probably a good idea. We have had several discussions on the board about the problem of fuel line freezing at high altitudes. It appears to happen when a plane is fueled on the ground in higher temps and humidity and then is flown in the flight levels in below zero temps, because the fuel at ground level can carry moisture. I have not had any problem fueling around here in MN in the winter and then going up high. That said, there have been a couple of incidents where others have experienced fuel line freeze so I am going back to putting a bottle of HEET in each tank during the winter if a high altitude flight is planned. 1-3% is ok, or so I have been told by the experts. Lastly, if I am flying up to International Falls or some other place that is foolishly cold I always plan ahead. I carry at least a 100' extension cord and call ahead to find out if there is a way to plug in. On occasion I have run a cord from the tarmac through the door or window of a rural airport building to plug in, but many in MN have outdoor plug-ins the same as cars. Need to do this if you want to get back home before spring thaws the plane out.

Generally, pretty simple. Let's say you have five things on one circuit at the main panel and if they are all switched on at the same time and drawing their maximum you need a 10 amp switch/breaker to protect that circuit. You are protecting the wiring from the power source from melting or worse. But now let's say that each device is rated at a max 2 amp draw. You could expect five two amp fuses, one for each device, wired between the device and the 10 amp breaker and usually near the breaker. Now you switch the entire circuit on with the switch/breaker and each of the devices is appropriately protected. Increasingly common with electronic devices that have very low draws compared to what was originally installed. It is preferable to give each device its own breaker rated to protect the circuit and the device, but as modifications are made to older craft and more and more low draw electronics are installed, sometimes multiple devices are installed to a single breaker. Rewired a fairly large sailboat last summer and ran into the issue quite a bit.

I am at KFCM. Send me a PM and we will see what can be arranged. The plane is at Willmar for the annual right now, but should not be much longer.

That's a story. I earned the leather jacket but never picked it up. I was supposed to meet with the woman from the Minnesota Department of Aeronautics, at the FBO at the MSP International airport. I and another pilot had arranged to fly together and land at MSP. I called the MSP tower and figured out how to do it. About a week before, I decided to go out and practice some rapid landings. I figured the chances were pretty good that MSP tower would want me to "keep your speed up," and with 737s coming in on my tail that would mean "really up." The practice day was very cold and I was in a hurry, so I did not spend much time on the ramp. I flew to an airport about 20 nm away, did a "speed up" landing there, immediately turned around and took off to do another. On takeoff I got very weird readings on the JPI 930. As I recall, oil temp was unusually low, oil pressure was just wrong, so I immediately turned around and landed. I had oil streaks about two feet wide and running the length of the aircraft on both sides, so I left the aircraft on the tarmac, got a ride home, and had a mechanic look at it. It turned out that because I had not allowed the engine compartment to warm up at all, and because the air temp was so low, the air/oil separator had frozen blocking the oil breather tube. The running engine caused pressure in the crankcase and the engine was spraying oil out of every available orifice. There was, fortunately, no damage, and the next warm day I was able to go out and fly the plane home. But because of that I never flew to MSP and never met with the woman from Aeronautics. Then I looked the jacket up on the internet and it was, well, nice enough, but just sort of a bag, no fit to it at all. I have several leather jackets, this one had no cool effect. I never did go meet with her and pick up the jacket, but I was pilot number 14 to land at the required 135 airports. The doing of the adventure was more fun than the trophy. I subsequently landed on one of the three remaining airports, so I have 136, but I still have not landed at MSP International nor the airport in northern MN with the patch of swamp grass. That's what happened.