jlunseth

I had some avionics work done in the middle of the summer that included installing an LHS landing height system that was wired to the gear switch. First test flight the gear would not retract. Tried the red button, no luck. Had the tower check the gear and it was down. Landing was uneventful. On inspection, there was a bad crimp, I assume it was at the connector to the switch. Got that fixed and all was good. Don't know if that gives you any hints, but it could just be a bad switch or connection. In addition to checking the Emergency Gear lock to make sure it is closed, did you try the breaker? There is also a safety switch that prevents the gear from retracting below some speed, I think its 40 kts but not sure. The red button on the upper part of the panel near the center is the by-pass if you want to retract the gear but the safety switch is not letting you. Other than that, get it to your mechanic.

@kortopates . A little different question than the OPs, but is this something we should be doing during our pre-flight run up? Specifically I am asking whether we should lean out for that run up? My POH says full rich so that is what I have always done.

What I appreciate is that because of people, specifically including Anthony, on this forum, there is not so much brick throwing and mostly good exchange of information. Keeps me coming back.

Wise decision. Hard to diagnose from here, just speculation. The engine and the turbo have a symbiotic relationship, the engine has to be making power to spin the turbo, and if the turbo doesn’t spin the engine won’t make power. The problem may be with the engine and not the turbo. Maybe #6 is not working. Better find out.

Mooney Pilot Proficiency Program is the name. I have been to five over time, all really good, Niagara, Peoria, Olathe, Boulder and Santa Fe. All the instructors I have flown with have their own Mooneys. Most or all of the instructors have flown multiple Mooney models. They are great! I am planning on going again this year. Flew with Wayne Fisher in Boulder and got mountain training, landed and took off a Leadville, a non-event in a turbo. If you want some truly advanced training and are not averse to the cost, I highly recommend Advance Performance Solutions. https://apstraining.com/about/ Upset recovery in a 300XL. You will do all the stalls, cross controlled stalls, and spins you can handle, including in IMC. Ever wonder what an AI does when you spin in IMC, you will see it. They teach a super method of getting out of a spin. You will also do many aerobatic maneuvers, hammerhead, Split-S, Cuban, even a Lomcevak if you are up to it. The other great one is the other APS, Advanced Pilot Seminars in Ada. I would wait until they do another live seminar, its worth the trip. You will learn more about engine management than you thought existed.

I wanna fly a Beaver or an Otter on floats. Just once. Don’t need to own one and it doesn’t matter which one. If I had to pick, then the Otter. Turboprop conversion would be nice but not necessary

No, sorry, I didn’t mean my comments to be critical. However, the JPI does not know if you are LOP or ROP. It has no fuel mixture sensor. It makes assumptions and applies an algorithm based on those assumptions. As I said, those assumptions apply to most aircraft but not to our 231s.

I can also switch my 930 from ROP to LOP, but once the lean find process is started it can’t be switched back to ROP. In the 231, if you are Rich of Peak and then you put the 930 in LOP mode and lean over to the LOP side, the readings you get on EGT and when the last cylinder peaks are completely invalid. The reason is that the 231 has an interlink between fuel flow and MP. This is different from most other aircraft. So when you start to lean the fuel out the MP changes with it. The assumption of the LOP mode in the JPI is that when you pull the fuel back, all other things remain equal, meaning especially that the MP does not change as you lean the fuel. Other turbo’d aircraft have wastegate controllers that will keep the MP where you originally set it, so if you set it at 32” and then lean the fuel out in LOP mode on the JPI, the MP will stay at 32”. If the MP and fuel flow are both changing your are completely changing your power setting, you are not changing the air/fuel ratio much if at all, and that is what Lean of Peak is about, changing the air/fuel ratio. You will definitely wind up with a lower power setting, but you have no idea whether you are Lean of Peak, or if you are, how many degrees lean of peak you are. Probably you are still Rich of Peak just at a lower power setting. If the newer JPIs have been changed so you can switch back and forth between LOP and ROP that would be great, but I kinda don’t think so.

Yeah, I have a 430 as a backup to the 750 and it works that way also. Not sure about the 750 myself. Don’t think we have one of those “distance to ILS” approaches around here, not that I have run into. To the OP, I hope we cleared up some of the confusion about what is doing what on your panel. Skip’s comments were great. Probably a little too deep a dive, but the King AP’s are generally attitude based APs, meaning they use attitude information from the AI. In your panel, the source of that is the 275. So although it might be a little weird, your 275 is the primary instrument feeding rate information to the AP and the lower G5 is the source of horizontal guidance information. It may be that the upper G5 is hooked to the system to reflect what is showing on the 275, but the 275 is the source for the AP. In my installation, auto switch in the GPS is not yet working correctly. I have to manually make the switch to VLOC in the 750 (like your 530) and that works fine for an ILS. The whole system is now using the LOC/ILS signals for horizontal and vertical (GS) guidance. In my installation that is not working right for VORs. To use the VOR signal, I have to both (1) put the GPS in VLOC and (2) use the CDI button in the 275 to manually change over to VOR mode. I am going to have my avionics shop look at it. I am just telling you so you know that when the 530 is put into VLOC you should see the course needle on the 275 change from magenta to green, and if it doesn’t you have to go into CDI on the 275 and manually switch the 275 into VOR mode. It will annunciate VOR and there is the color change to tell you what is happening. If the thing is still in magenta the 275, which is driving your AP during an approach, it is not using the VOR signal to drive the AP. Don’t know why this quirk exists, it may just be my install, but it does happen.

When I put the 750 in I pulled an old KNS80, good unit but took up alot of room. I put a slim little DME in just so I can get VOR and ILS distances, although I can't think of much reason to get an ILS distance. Mostly I use it to fly traditional VOR approaches just for practice.

As far as an online course is concerned I used King. It was a long time ago now. But when you are actually prepping for the test there is no substitute for getting the current Gleim book and taking the test over several times until you get it right. Among other things, the tests always have questions that involve reading graphs and coming up with numbers, and the graphs are really hard to use and get a number accurate to the tenth. The tests have probably changed since I took my IFR, but at the time they included quite a few outmoded questions on systems that almost no one was using like RMI's (that rely on VOR's and ADF's) and types of calculations that were not very relevant to then-current navigation. To pass the test it is important to be prepared on anything they might ask you, and the Gleim book went over all the possible questions, including the outmoded stuff that would show up. For example, you could work out some of the graph problems and then find out if your answer of "14.5" was correct or the real answer was "14.8", the difference on the graphs between the two would be tiny. I know the FAA has upgraded the test since I took it, which was about 12 years ago, but they always seem to be behind in doing upgrades, so the questions are always behind. 12 years ago they were still asking a couple of LORAN questions and LORAN had been turned off in favor of GPS, and they had almost no GPS questions although that was what we were all learning. They hadn't gotten to that yet.

Thanks for the clarification that the 150 is digital Skip, as I said, I don’t have one so no experience. However, I looked at the manual for the KFC150 and it appears to me that the operation from the pilot’s perspective is just the same as the 200, for example, on an ILS approach. The old way, before GPS, was that the bug would be used to fly the procedure turn and somewhere before final approach course intercept the pilot would put the AP in APCH mode. That would “ARM” the APCH mode, and the AP would use the closure rate to determine capture of the localizer. After localizer capture and flying inbound, APCH would switch to CPLD in my plane, and in the KFC 150 the manual says the light on the annunciation goes from blinking to solid and the ARM annunciation disappears. The aircraft then flies into the glideslope and couples to the slope. There is a Backcourse mode for both the 150 and the 200, so if you are flying the outbound backcourse you can put the AP in APCH and Backcourse and it will let you fly the procedure turn using the heading bug and it is apparently automatically set to ARM and capture the LOC. I don’t use Backcourse with my 200, it does not seem to play well with a GPS (my AP has been run with a 430 and currently with a 750 Xi). I just use HDG on the AP and GPS mode on my GPSS (an Icarus SAM) which will fly the entire backcourse including the procedure turns. However, the important point is that shortly before Localizer intercept the AP must be put into APCH, it will then ARM and it will couple to the Localizer and then couple to the GS when the aircraft gets there. Also, the GPS must be in VLOC with the correct ILS frequency in the top slot, or there will be no LOC or GS signal for the AP to use. A nifty thing in the 750, although off the point, is that the step of IDng the ILS is done automatically. The 750 decodes the Morse code and if correct, will put the KLVN ILS in small print above the ILS frequency in the active Nav frequency window. I noticed a note in the 150 manual that GS is locked out for RNAV and VOR approaches, when the 150 is in APCH mode. Not sure how this works with modern LPV approaches or the relatively new RNAV approaches for VORs that compute a GS. I am guessing Garmin and others have figured out a way to fool the AP into believing it is flying an ILS and it uses the calculated slope from the GPS.

PS all that assumes that the 275 is getting information from the 530 in your aircraft. If it is not hooked up that way then I don't see a way to fly an approach from the 530. I am assuming that was the reason the 275 went in. Maybe someone installed the G5's thinking they were compatible with the AP and they only sort of are.

I think Skip and I are agreeing with each other. The primary instrument driving the AP needs to be the 275, so it needs to be connected to the 530 for any approach information to get to the AP (which will happen through the 275, not the G5's). I have the KFC200 so it is the same but not quite. In my aircraft, to fly an ILS, the 530 needs to be switched to VLOC just before the final approach course of an ILS. That's the first thing. Normally, when you put the ILS into the 530, it will put the LOC frequency in the standby (bottom) slot of the Nav radio frequency display. The pilot must switch that to the top (active) frequency manually. If the pilot makes that switch, then the 530 normally will switch automatically to VLOC at some point during the approach. The AP then needs to be switched to APCH mode, it should not be in Nav or HDG. So if you have all those things done correctly, (1) the correct frequency is in the active window, (2) the 530 is in VLOC, and (3) the AP is in APCH, then the AP will capture the GS and fly down it, and will also capture the Loc for horizontal position. If you are still in HDG on the final approach course you will get no GS. The correct ADI will be the 275, not the G5's, although they can be used as a reference. A couple of words of caution. First, the autoswitch in the 530 that switches the unit from GPS to VLOC is a setting, it must be set in the menus of the 530 to autoswitch. If it is not, the pilot must manually make the switch to VLOC. Bear in mind that if, for some reason, the autoswitch does not happen, the pilot can always manually switch to VLOC. Second, you can't make the switch to VLOC and APCH too soon. You can use HDG and GPSS to fly the backcourse and the procedure turn but you should not switch to APCH until you are right at the final approach course, and same with the switch to VLOC, that should happen there also. If they happen before you are on the final approach course the 530 will get confused and fly you somewhere weird. I have made that mistake in IMC, not to be repeated. Probably more than you want to know but here goes. The 150 and 200 are analog AP's. What they were originally designed for was to use the HDG bug to fly the outbound course and the procedure turn in an ILS, and if the aircraft is put into APCH mode before the ILS or VOR final approach course, the AP will fly to the HDG bug and use the rate of approach to the final approach course in the computations it makes about when to switch from ARMED to CPLD in APCH mode. At that point, APCH mode takes over from HDG mode and flies the approach. Only APCH mode has the capability to capture the GS, so if the AP is not in APCH, or it never switches from ARMED to CPLD, then it won't capture the GS. Now we have brought in electronic instruments, including a GPSS, that converts the digital signal from the GPS into an analog signal for the AP. That is fed in through the HDG bug to fool the AP into flying the course the GPS dictates when GPSS is "On". However, ILS or VOR approaches need to be flown in VLOC and with the AP in APCH mode, or the approach won't work. When that switch is made, the AP is operating completely in an analog mode, just as it did before GPSs came around, except for one thing. The RWY## waypoint is fed to APCH mode to use that as an endpoint to the approach. Otherwise, as far as capturing the GS and holding the LOC are concerned, that is being done in analog mode in the AP and it must have the LOC/ILS frequency tuned in and the 530 must be transmitting that signal to the AP. Same applies for a VOR approach except the AP won't give you a glideslope on a VOR. There is another, GPS way of flying a VOR that is fairly new, and that will give you a GS in the same way that the GPS provides a GS for an RNAV, that is, it is a GS calculated by the GPS, not a GS coming from an ILS-type signal (which isn't there in a VOR approach). I guess the new type overlay approach is legal as long as you monitor on an actual VOR frequency and indicator.

Well, you can have all the AFMSs in the world but if you don’t know what is connected to what you are still going to be lost. The AFMSs are written by a manufacturer who does not know what the actual installation will be. I had one 275 installed as a backup AI, and then got a second one to replace the old King instruments that were driving my KFC200. The two I were installed in dual reversionary mode replacing the old AI/Flight Director and HSI. I have the AFMSs and all the manuals, but I have still made many, probably ten test flights of a couple of hours each to try to figure out what is directing what, and when I have to push what button, and I am still not completely satisfied that I know all of it. I have run into some unique quirks along the way, nothing dramatic that would bring the plane down in IMC, but things that do not act as expected. There are passages in the AFSMs I got that are short and obtuse and you don’t really understand their meaning until you have run into it in the air. The original system was installed, manuals written, and approved as a system. Now you have paid to have a completely different set of nifty components installed in its place but no one writes a manual or AFSM for that unique system. You just have to get in the air, definitely VFR, put it through its paces and learn what it does and what its foibles are. I am going to take a guess at what is going on, and it’s just a guess because I am not an avionics installer and I don’t know what is connected to what in your panel. The G5 as I understand it is not fully compatible with non-Garmin AP’s. You need a 275 for that, and that is probably why it is there, to run the AP. The puzzle is what the 530 is connected to. It should be connected to the 275 in order to feed approach information to the 275 so the 275 can drive the AP, but if you are getting Glideslopes, etc. on the G5 my guess is that the 530 is connected to the G5s and that the G5s are just displays, that is, they do not drive the AP for an approach they just display how the approach is progressing so you can hand fly??? Probably the system could be connected to display information on the G5 and also provide information to the 275, but maybe the connection to the 275 is not there? GPSS is a little bit of a different thing, at least in my plane. I have an Icarus SAM and it is connected so it can drive a navigation course but not an approach. The 275 needs to be getting the approach info from the 530 in order for it to drive the AP, and maybe it is not getting that info. Is there a Nav switch somewhere on the panel maybe, like a Nav1/Nav2 toggle switch that would direct the nav signal to the 275?

I confess I was not paying for the fuel or setting the mixture, that was my uncle, I just had the yoke. But I looked at some twins when I was shopping for a plane and I was seeing 40-50GPH on most of them.

Yup. And there is the constant joke that the purpose of the second engine is to fly you to the crash site. Decades ago I spent time in a C-55 Baron. It was a cool airplane, and fast. But gas (for autos) was still in the cents per gallon range, probably 0.39 cents. 50 GPH because of two engines makes me shudder.

Flying for Angel Flight, I have put a 295 pounder in my back seat (and his wife in front with me), a collapsible wheelchair in the back, and 6’ 4” people in the co-pilot seat. There are a couple of Ci owners in our local wing. The three of us can take what are two or three leg flights for other aircraft because of speed and range. I have made a number of AF flights to and from MT, OH, etc. The insurance is not a killer. I can even put a patient on supplemental O2 if needed, although I only have done it once, and that was not the patient. I, also, would like to fly higher and faster but I just can’t seem to beat the mission flexibility of my nearly 40 year old aircraft.

There is another thread going on replacing an Alcor probe in an M20K. Paul K says the JPI probes are not compatible with the Mooney probe.

I was aware of that. The TIT is in the vicinity of 1600. The turbo is also significantly warmed by the act of compressing the intake air. Iron and steel start to glow red at 900-1000 dF so you don’t even need to be pushing the turbo hard to get red. I make my climb at 500 fpm. It will climb a little faster, but I fly with such a variety of passengers for Angel Flight. I have found that no one’s ears are harmed by a 500 rpm climb or descent. In addition, there are circumstances - a high, hot climb out west in the middle of the summer - where you need the cooling effect of the higher airspeed at 500. It will climb at 7 -800 pretty consistently if temps don’t start heating up. It will climb for periods of a few minutes in cold winter air at between 1-1500 rpm.

The Merlin also substantially reduces bootstrapping, or so they say. I have the Merlin so I experience some bootstrapping but not much, more a matter of turbo lag and my not having the patience always, to wait for the turbo to settle. Both the Merlin and the intercooler are very worthwhile if you don't have them, notwithstanding that real pilots don't need them.

I have percent power on my JPI. I ignore it. There are two completely different measures, one for ROP and one for LOP. The unit has no way of knowing whether the engine is operating LOP v ROP and in my aircraft it applies the wrong formula most of the time. When I do operate ROP, it appears to me the algorithm is off by about 8%, that is, if it is reporting HP is 75% it is actually around 68-69%.

I don't know what type of probe you are using. I have JPI probes in my 231 for TIT and EGT and have never had to replace one. They have been in the engine for around 1700 hours at this point. I can't imagine the environment for the Acclaim would be different than in my engine, the probes are in the same places and see the same temps.

We get questions on MS about how to operate the 231 engine quite often and there is a wealth of information from past threads if you search for it. If you do and have any further questions let me know. I can tell you several mistakes never to make. Never lean for takeoff regardless of altitude and never lean in the climb. If you do, you can generate temps that will kill the engine or damage the turbo in a single flight. That is a method of operation for normally aspirated aircraft that does not apply to turbos. Turbos should be full rich full power for takeoff and climb. If you do make the mistake of leaning for takeoff and climb and see the temps rising, put in full rich full power. Does your new-to-you aircraft have the Merlin wastegate and/or an intercooler? The intercooler in particular makes a major difference in what power settings you use. Max for the non-intercooled engine is 40", max for the intercooled engine is 36-37" and full rich at that power setting. The wastegate does not affect power settings but it does change the Critical Altitude quite a bit (the altitude at which the engine can no longer make full power). It goes from 15,500 for the factory engine to about 22,500. These numbers vary quite a bit with day OATs. You should not use any cruise power setting that is at 70% HP or greater where the fuel flow is in the 12's, that is 12 point something GPH. You should not use the "at peak" settings that are in the manual. If you want to cruise in rich of peak mode and 70% or better HP the fuel flow needs to be at least 13.3 and if the CHT's are going over 400 put in more fuel flow. I cruise LOP most of the time, there are plenty of posts with my method for doing that if you are interested. The engine has to be set up properly or it won't work.

I used to go out once every summer to get used to landings like that, where I had to carry 90 kts down onto the runway with a full 90 degree crosswind. I have to say I have not done that kind of practice in the last couple of years and I know I should. Its exhausting and I applaud you and your student for soldiering through it. The part I don't like is that there is a point where the plane is still light on its feet but on the runway, and the wind will skitter it downwind a little. I aim for the upwind side of the runway. Not enough to worry about RLOC but I wonder about the tires I am paying for. For better or worse, those are conditions that are familiar in the Dakotas and west, and even here in the MSP area on occasion. There are no trees between the Arctic Circle and KBIS or KFAR to slow the wind down. I used to see those landings as a challenge, but the thrill has faded.