jlunseth

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.

Sorry to say it but this is not a liberal playbook. Fox ran all these stories the past week complete with some hysterical, demanding "cross examination" of FAA officials. The helicopter photo appeared as the front headline on Fox's internet news several times, along with photos of what were clearly manned aircraft. Fox ran a quote from some guy on the street, hysterical about all the drones with "red, green and white lights." Someone at Fox needs to get an education on legal aircraft, aircraft lighting, and ways of flying VFR, IFR, etc. I vaguely recall that at least one of their reporters or anchors is a pilot. If it were just the liberal media it could be laughed off, but unfortunately in this case the stupidity is spread far and wide.

There are a few short grass strips among those 138 public airports in MN and I landed on and took off from them. But at the time, trying to make all the airports in the state, I was doing at least a dozen landings a day on all kinds and lengths of strips, so I was on my game. From memory, there are a couple in the 2800-2900 range and there may have been one that was 2500. I emphasize that those were grass strips where the grass improves braking, and they had runouts so you could stay in ground effect if needed, even if the plane was not ready to climb yet. But all that was awhile ago. There is no room for error. These days the shortest I land on on a regular basis is a 3000 strip, 4R5. I do about ten trips up there during the summer. It works, but I am always mindful of the end of the runway coming quickly when I land. Takeoff is just not an issue, the 231 makes 100% HP for takeoff wherever you are. Which reminds me, if anyone from out west or wanting to land out west is reading this, my personal minimums out there are quite a bit longer. The engine makes plenty of power, even at Leadville, but you will be landing at a higher true airspeed and need a longer runway. Most of the runways out there are around 1,000 longer than here in the Midwest. Don’t think you can take a Midwest minimum and use it out west at 6,000 or 10,000, not the same.

I have a 231. Minnesota has a program called Fly Minnesota, where you get a leather jacket if you land at 135 of Minnesota’s 138 public airports. Somewhere around 25 or 30 of those are grass. Another pilot and I rented a Skyhawk and made about a dozen grass landings one day. Once I had done that, I did the rest in my 231. After that I was used to it so I did quite a few more grass strip landings just for the heck of it. The landings are pretty easy. You want to use a soft field technique. The grass has considerably more drag than asphalt unless it is wet, so I found that it was more comfortable to land on short grass strips than short asphalt. The plane slows quickly once the wheels are on the ground. I found the takeoffs to be the more demanding task. Soft field takeoff calls for lifting the plane off the ground and into ground effect, then allowing the plane to accelerate in ground effect before starting a climb. The nose of the 231 is pretty heavy. It takes some practice to lift it off and then drop the nose quickly to stay in ground effect, but it can definitely be done. The technique is helpful for any short field. You realize that, after the first few hundred feet you don’t actually need runway under the plane, just decent ground without tall grass or brush. I noticed that lots of grass strips in our area had what I would call “runouts” - areas past the end of the runway that were low flat ground, so you could use that to finish your takeoff if needed. There were lots of comments about dropping a wheel into a gopher hole and generating a prop strike. The prop clearance is not much compared to, say, the Skyhawk. I found all the grass strips I landed at to be well maintained and the gopher hole is probably remotely possible but not very likely. I always flew over and inspected a grass strip before making a landing. There was one strip in northern MN that had a patch of swamp grass in the middle and I elected not to land at that one, never have landed there, its one of two landing strips in the state that I have not landed on. All in all, you can do it, but the novelty wore off and the 231 was not the best plane to be landing on grass. I didn’t like the takeoffs frankly, it is a tricky balancing act to get off the ground and into ground effect and hold it there, so I have not done it for quite a few years now. One of the problems with grass landings in MN, where I live, is that quite a few of them require coming in over a lake, staying high, and dropping over a tree line onto a short field. Lakes suck. The water is relatively cold compared to the land and you will need more power to maintain altitude or a reasonable descent rate for landing, and then right when you get to the runway that changes and the warm earth causes updrafts that lift the plane, as does the orographic effect of the tree line. You need to stay in practice to drop a 231 onto grass in those conditions. You can’t just do it because you have a plane and it is legal to land there.

Up here in MN you either install a 120 VAC Reiff or Tanis and carry a really long extension cord, or hope the FBO has a space heater type that they can run into the cowl for awhile. We generally get quite a few days in the -20 dF range in Jan (or colder) and on occasion it sits at about that temp for two or three weeks. We need all the help we can get. Most guys just leave it plugged in. I have a foam block that goes in the oil cooler, if I don’t do that the oil temp will not make 100 dF in the air, which is the minimum in the POH. The turbo needs that for the bearing oil.

My experience? Induction icing shows up initially as a persistent decline in MP as the air filter plugs with whatever is causing the blockage. Usually it is caused by flying through ice clouds which you find at high altitudes where the temp is very low so the droplets in the cloud freeze. I suppose snow could cause it also but I have flown through snow several times and not experienced induction icing. General icing I suppose could also cause it but I have not experienced that either, although I have only experienced airframe icing a few times and gotten out of it immediately. I suppose if you have TKS and fly in icing conditions long enough it could happen. Induction icing generally doesn't happen suddenly, it can take a few minutes for the filter to plug badly enough to reduce induction air flow. The 231, for those interested, has both a manual and an automatic system for the door. If I am high and start to see an MP drop that I cannot otherwise explain I operate the door rather than wait for the automatic system. I can't say I have ever experienced fuel line icing thankfully. I haven't used alcohol for quite awhile, but when I did I used the isopropyl fuel antifreeze you can buy at any auto store. It is cheap. Was recommended to me by very experience Mooney people.

@201er - I had the same reaction to those pictures. Your upper left picture I saw as a video and it actually focused on a different craft, green light on starboard side, red on port, landing light in the middle. Fox has been running a quote from someone in NJ talking about all the aircraft with red, green and white lights and how he looked on Flightaware and there was no flight (so it must be martian)! This actually disturbs me a little because the news media have obviously not taken any steps to educate themselves about standard/required beacons, position lights, landing lights, or how VFR, IFR, ADSB actually work and they are making such a hyped up mess of it, it is going to make life difficult for GA. I wonder if they have actually checked to see how many of these concentrations are around flight schools?

DanB is mostly correct. Left Turbosupercharged Injected Opposed 360 cc. The KB is the engine model. The LB is the next model of the same engine, with some changes. If this was a major overhaul, I don't know why they would say "to KB limits." You should probably ask the shop/mechanic what they meant by that. I don't remember all the changes that were made by TCM from the KB to the LB, I think one of them was a larger throttle body. The LB runs cooler than the KB. If I had an LB (which I do) I would not want it reverted to a KB and it makes no sense that anyone would do that. I am going to guess that MO is someone's abbreviation for "major overhaul." I am going to guess that "to KB limits" just means that the original factory limits for internal dimensions such as crankshaft, bearings, etc. were used in the overhaul, but I would want to verify that the engine was not reverted to a KB. I surmise this is in an ad for an aircraft that is for sale and they are saying that the engine was overhauled. If so, the language used in advertising is often made up and not exactly accurate technical verbiage.

@jetpilot86 That works in any aircraft, such as your Bravo, that maintains a fixed manifold pressure as you lean. In the 231 MP is not maintained at the original set point by the wastegate controller. MP will reduce as fuel flow is reduced. So we have to find another way, hence my "trick." Your way of doing it should work in the Bravo, 252 (and Encore) and in the Acclaim.

The engine should always be leaned on the ground and shortly after start-up. As you lean out at idle/taxi power, the RPMs will rise approximately 75 RPMs and then fall off. That is called "idle rise." Pull it out to peak idle rise and use that for all ground ops. If a turbo, put it in your "Before Takeoff" checklist to make the mixture full rich for takeoff, you don't want to take off with the mixture leaned with a turbo engine. I am not sure what you have, your signature line says it is an E (normally aspirated) but your user name suggests a turbo. In any event, leaning to idle rise should be done with both engine types. In my checklist, I have a "Before Takeoff" section that includes putting the mixture to full rich, with a turbo I always takeoff full rich because regardless of airport altitude, the engine will always make 100%HP on takeoff. I always run my Before Takeoff list when at the hold short line. If a turbo, you should always check your engine monitor/EGT gauge as soon as you are off the ground to make sure you don't have spiking TIT, which means you forgot to put the mixture in full. Immediately fix it if you see that. But back to the original point, always lean to idle rise on the ground. I watched that Mike Busch video and he says he leans even more aggressively than just idle rise. Nothing inherently wrong with that, you should run the engine as lean as possible on the ground, but in my engine it is possible to lean too aggressively on the ground with the result that if you try to increase the power by putting in a little more MP, the engine will try to quit. Just an inconvenience on the ground, because you can restart. Maybe not a problem with your engine but it is possible with my TSIO360, which is why I generally don't lean past peak idle rise.

Probably everybody knows this, but if you fill the oil to, say, 7qts and then go out and run the engine, it will be 6 qts more or less when you come back. This affect lasts for more than 24 hours in my aircraft. If you let the plane sit for a few days and come back it will be 7 qts again. The reason is that running the engine distributes oil throughout the engine. Once the engine is turned off that oil begins to slowly drain back to the sump, where it is measured by the dipstick. The point is, if you are checking your oil consumption, either do it consistently right after landing, or consistently after letting the plane sit for a couple of days and then checking before you run the engine. One way or the other. I have a couple thousand hours of using XC in my plane. No complaints.

My plane is in a communal hangar at an FBO. We can call the FBO and have them plug the plane in before departure. But most everyone just has their plane plugged in constantly. Did I mention I live in Minnesota? It is 10 dF here this a.m. and it gets a lot colder than that in Jan and Feb.

Ok. In foreflight you can enter a flight including an altitude. You can then send the flight to Map. In Map, activate Profile and you will see a static but not very detailed graphic of your route, including where and at what altitudes icing is likely. You can also hit the Globe button in the lower left and “fly” the flight which will show where icing is likely. Still works. I didn’t try convection because none would show up this time of year. Lacks the detail of a skew t though, doesn’t show cape and other measures of potential in the atmosphere. Might depend on what level of foreflight you have.

Foreflight has - or at least had - a graphic where you could input your route of flight and altitude, and it would give you a display of cloud cover and icing potential you would encounter along the route. Not the same as skew t but provides the basic function of telling you when and where you might run into these. Haven’t checked yet to see if it is still working. Mystifies me why NOAA would remove such an excellent tool.

Well, this may have a broader effect than just the noaa site. I have used an app for years called Skew T Log Pro. You could pick an airport and get a skew t diagram, or pick a course beginning and ending and get charts over that course. It is down. It got its data from the noaa site. I have not check the foreflight graphics yet, wonder if they have been affected. I checked some of the sites in the noaa notice that was posted, could not find a skew t log p source. Maybe its there, but the sites were very complicated and I did not see the skew p data anywhere.

Might check upstream in the air intake for a possible source of debris. A piece of something breaks off, hits the turbo, goes through, but the strike leaves a bend in the shaft?

I never fly if there is oil on the nose gear during the pre-flight. I saw a drop once, had the airplane go into a shop because of it, the shop said it was normal, we lost oil in the dark after crossing Lake Michigan and got to do an emergency power off landing in Canada. No oil on the nose gear for me. None. Not a single drop.

One of the smartest things I did when the panel was rebuilt in my 231 was to take the avionics shops recommendation to put the JPI930 over on the pilots side, in the scan. I wholeheartedly agree with Paul’s recommendation to check engine parameters during takeoff. Especially the 231 flyers who are in charge of everything about the engine.

As far as I am aware, the only aftermarket wastegate controller that is STCd for our 231s is still the Merlyn. It’s not perfect but works pretty good.

You will get a ram air effect that increases MP somewhat during takeoff. As the aircraft rolls down the runway it picks up speed, and the ram air effect is particularly pronounced immediately after liftoff when you clean the plane up. The ram air increases MP, and that increases engine output, and that increases turbo output which increases engine output further. What I do if it helps any is pretty much what you are doing, put in about 30”, let the turbo kick in, then I put in 36”. The ram air effect may add another inch to 37 or slightly higher. After I have cleaned up the plane and have control of the climb out I will adjust it back to 36”. There is no need to use a lot of power on takeoff. I have not found any airport anywhere, including Leadville, where 36” won’t do it for the takeoff. The 231 has ample power. Truth be told the 231 has enough power that you can do a perfectly good takeoff with 34 or 35 inches. I wouldn’t put the engine in a position where it might get to 42, which is an overboost. Keeping the power and therefore the fuel flow up during a long climb, especially a high hot climb out of a western airport, is the more important time for long term engine health IMHO.

No, not full throttle movement. "Full power" depends on your TSIO360 engine configuration. I have an intercooler so it is a little different in my engine than in the factory, non-intercooled engine. Full power in the factory engine is 40MP at 2700 RPMs per the POH. You can, but never should, exceed that limit as it is an overboost. With the intercooler the information is a little more complicated but can be reduced to simple for actual flying. The intercooler theory is that cooling the induction air that comes out of the turbocharger increases its density and therefore its oxygen content. So there is a chart that comes with the intercooler that the pilot uses to adjust the POH settings down, depending on the Differential Temperature. The DT is the amount by which the air coming out of the turbocharger has been cooled before going into the induction system. The DT is pretty good, it ranges around 85-125 dF at cruise. Lots of people use 36" and 2700 RPMs as full power and there is nothing wrong with that. It comes out of an old article recommending using the 252 settings for the intercooled 231 engine. However, the STC for the Turboplus contains instructions for adjusting the MP downward from the POH setting in order for the A&P to make a full power fuel setting on the ground. Per the STC instructions the actual MP varies with OAT and approaches 37", although as I recall it does not quite get there. In practice, say for takeoff, I use 36" as max power even though it is a little low. But as the aircraft picks up speed that may increase a little. I don't take offense unless it reaches 37, then I will adjust it down a little. I don't like adjusting during takeoff if I can avoid it because you wind up chasing your tail (you adjust down, that slows the turbo so the adjustment winds up being more than you wanted, so you adjust back up, etc.). The odd thing is that a setting that is a little less than full power can make the engine quite a bit hotter. I don't know the mechanics of it, but it is my perception that the fuel flow bumps up more rapidly as the engine approaches full power. So although it may be counterintuitive, a cure for a fuel flow that is showing too low and CHTs that are getting a little too hot may be to add MP rather than to subtract, because that allows the fuel flow to get to its max setting. JimF - thanks for the comments. I too like Paul K's idea of setting the max fuel flow to 25 GPH rather than the 24 in the POH, you can always adjust it down, but once it is set on the ground you can't adjust it up, and the usual problem is that it just starts to drift down on takeoff to 20-21, and the CHTs then get warm. Also, I completely agree on the baffles, keep them as tight as possible. You are lucky you are an A&P, I keep trying to get my A&P to do what Paul recommends, sometimes it happens and sometimes not. They are getting better.

PS if you use the trick of doing the big pull and then putting the monitor in ROP mode to find degrees lean of peak, you need to totally ignore the percentage of horsepower that is displayed by some units, such as my JPI930. I haven’t found that percent of peak display to be very accurate anyway. But the problem with it when you do the trick, is that it makes the same assumptions as ROP mode and LOP mode and those assumptions are wrong if you use ROP mode to determine degrees LOP. In other words, if you do the trick and then use ROP mode to find degrees lean of peak, the unit assumes you are operating rich of peak and it will give you a percent HP reading that is based on ROP operation (i.e. what you would get from the power tables in your POH, plus any adjustment for an intercooler in a 231). But you are operating LOP, and the way of determining percent HP when LOP is completely different than when ROP, so the unit is using the wrong formula to calculate percent HP. The determination of percent HP when LOP is really simple and you can practically do it in your head. It is the fuel flow in GPH times a constant that depends on the compression ratio of the engine, divided by the total rated HP of the engine. For the TSIO360LB that is GPH x 13.7 divided by 210. So my favorite fuel setting in my old engine was 11.1 GPH to operate LOP. That means the HP was 11.1 x 13.7 / 210 =0.724 or 72%, but my JPI would erroneously display 90 something percent. There is a K factor that needs to be input to make the percent HP work right on the ROP side and my was always off by about 7 or 8 % so I just ignored it. I mention this so someone doesn’t freak out because his or her engine monitor now says his LOP mix produces a really high percent HP.

If you want the icicle display to work, or to get degrees lean of peak, you have to start the lean find process when you are on the rich side of peak and then lean over to the lean side. You don’t do the big pull first, you put the engine monitor in lean find first. I don’t bother with the LOP lean find function anymore, in my aircraft, the 231, the manifold pressure changes when you bring the fuel flow back so you are changing the whole power setting and the “peak” you find is not valid. But in an NA the MP should stay constant at ambient pressure provided you are not changing altitude, so you are only changing fuel flow. The engine monitors don’t somehow “know” you are rich or lean of peak. They do not have a way to measure the air/fuel ratio as it changes. Rather, they assume that you start on the rich side and that you are changing fuel flow while manifold pressure remains constant. That applies whether you are using LOP mode or ROP mode. There is a trick you can use to do the big pull and still get an accurate reading. You could put the unit in LOP mode and then use the big pull and use the degrees LOP that is then displayed, but the monitor manufacturers want you to make small moves, not big ones, so their units can give you an accurate reading. What the monitor is trying to do, whether in rich or lean mode, is to find the cylinder that is nearest to peak and then use that cylinder to determine how many degrees rich or lean that cylinder is operating. It assumes, as I said, that you start the process on the rich side. In ROP mode it will find the first cylinder to reach peak and use that cylinder to determine how many degrees rich of peak. In LOP mode, it assumes you started on the rich side and leaned over, so it uses the last cylinder to peak to determine how many degrees rich of peak. As I said, it does not actually know whether you are rich or lean of peak, it makes assumptions. ROP mode simply means it finds the first cylinder to peak. LOP mode simply means it finds the last cylinder to peak. Sooooo…if you use the big pull first, before you put the monitor in any leaning mode, and then you put the monitor in Rich of Peak mode (you read that right), and then enrich back towards peak, the monitor will find the first cylinder that hits peak and when you then lean back again the result will be a fairly accurate reading of the degrees lean of peak the cylinder closest to peak is operating. It will display that as degrees rich of peak, but it is not, it will be degrees lean of peak. And you will have made the reading by making small moves once the monitor was put into ROP mode so the reading will be accurate.