jlunseth

I generally fly by the numbers, but have learned to respect the slickness of the Mooney airframe. For example, flying an approach I typically maintain 120 knots to the final approach fix, and going down the glideslope I want to be at 90 knots. 19 inches of MP will usually give me 90 knots. But if I start at 19 inches at the top of the slope I will never get down to 90, the combination of the higher approach speed, the speed going down the slope and the slickness of the airframe will conspire against me. So when I tip the nose over on the slope I will reduce power to 15.5 MP or so, I put in half flaps when speed comes under 100, and then will increase power for the balance of the final approach. There are lots of circumstances where a reduction to allow the airframe time to slow down is needed.

The other issue is uneven fuel flows. If the fuel flows at each of the cylinders are far enough apart and you follow the old advice to lean to roughness and then enrich back to smoothness, some of the cylinders may be in the "red box" while others are sufficiently lean. If you run the engine long enough at that kind of setting you are likely to see the need for a top overhaul replacing those cylinders. Again, if you run at or under 65% it does not matter.

For those on this thread who are considering experimenting with LOP, the even fuel flows are important, yes. But LOP also requires a strong spark. A mixture is "lean" because it has less fuel than what would be necessary to use up all the available O2 during combustion. In other words, the fuel in the mixture is somewhat rare. That slows the rate of combustion in the cylinder resulting in effect in a long slow push and because of the long slow push, cylinder temps will be cooler. Because fuel is a little rare, it is a little more difficult to ignite the mixture, hence the need for a strong spark. Most of us have found that fine wire spark plugs really help with that, and the mags need to be in good shape. Sometimes my engine will start to miss a little when LOP, when it is getting close to annual time. Then the annual happens and LOP performance is excellent. The reason is that the mags get checked and reset at annual every year.

Two things. First, I asked the question because I am not sure that any of our TSIO360 engines can make enough air to run LOP with a fuel flow of 12.8 GPH. I understand that your numbers were just running the formula. But lots of pilots make the mistake that they can use the formula any time to determine percent power. We can't. The air/fuel ratio must be a lean ratio. If the air/fuel ratio is not a lean ratio the formula does not apply. That was my concern/issue. As far as engine smoothness goes, you might run a true lean test and see what you get. The instructions are on GAMI's website (https://gami.com/gamijectors/leantest.php). I am on my second engine and both have run LOP very smoothly, without missing unless deeply LOP. The current one can run very deeply LOP without roughness. That was not true when the TCM injectors were in the engine, they would produce roughness as soon as the engine went LOP. But with the GAMIs I am able to go deep. I don't have any exact numbers yet, I plan on doing a lean test on the new (GAMI) injectors in the next couple of weeks and will report back. Just for the fun of it, I will try your 30"/2400/10.4 GPH and see what I get in terms of "LOPness," although our engines are different it might be instructive.

I am pretty sure that is what we did with the GAMI's, returned the old and got new in exchange, but I left that up to the A&P. I will try the lower power setting to get the spread. I have often wondered about how well that works with the very untuned induction system in the 231. Just a "log" that ends abruptly at a flat plate with droppers to the cylinders at intervals along the log. One might expect a pressure wave (back pressure) to build off the end plate of the dropper and extend back a varying length depending on the power being output, toward the droppers, affecting the pressure at the dropper, among other variables dependent on power. Also, the first dropper obviously is alot closer to the air source than the last. So it has always intrigued me whether the fuel spreads in the 231 would be the same at, say, 22" of MP as they would be at 34". No way to measure though except try them and see. I was impressed that we took our measurements at 25 inches and seem to have very even spreads at 34" so I am not going to worry about it. Thanks as usual Paul. When I get the engine all settled down I will send in some data under my Savvy subscription and start watching what it is doing in more detail.

@kortopates -The total spread was 1.3 if I recall. I can tell you that the engine would run rough the minute the mixture went past peak. The GAMIs are way better. I am going to do some testing to see how far LOP I can get and report back, but that creates limits on choices. To get more lean you either have to subtract fuel, which reduces power, or you have to add air and I am already using 34". When I originally derived my favorite setting I was worried I would be overworking the turbo. That did not turn out to be the case. I started to have it borescoped at every annual once it got up around 1500 hours, but Willmar reported no adverse wear or conditions. The turbo got to around 1700 hours without a hiccup and I ran LOP every opportunity I could. My TIT is right at, say, 1598 and I don't want it to go higher. Don't want to task the turbo more. So 34" may be arbitrary, but I don't think I want to add any more air than that. @Ragsf15e - A little over 72% HP. I get really nice speeds for a 231 at my LOP setting so I was hopeful I could get the new engine to work with it which appears to be the case. Better speeds at 72% LOP than I used to get at 75% ROP calculated using the tables and POH.

I was writing post two when you replied, I hope it answers most of your questions. Now that you mention it, I don't know if I am running fine wires, I think so, but I will check back with my A&P because now I am curious also. I ran fine wires in the old engine and it made a big difference for LOP ops. I generally agree with you that you don't have to be very far LOP. 10 or 12 degrees is ok, 20 is better. At the ADA live seminar the GAMI guys recommended running any turbo at 60 degrees LOP in the seminar, but at least at the time, most of their experience was big bore engines and ours are "little bore." I had several email discussions with Walter Atkinson back then and he kept saying just that, that they did not have much experience with our TSIO360's. I can tell you that my old engine made it a long way at the LOP cruise setting I was using, my CHTs were cooler and my airspeeds were actually significantly better than ROP. Bear in mind that a ROP power setting in the 231 is a little complicated. You have to take the numbers in the POH and then find the Differential Temperature that you are operating at (difference between CDT and IAT), then look up in a chart how much to adjust the POH MP for the factory nonintercooled engine downward in light of the DT. My experience was that the settings I derived that way were too low because my airspeeds were persistently lower at ROP than what they should have been. Then I started operating LOP using the formula and presto, they were right where they should be for a given power setting, or slightly better.

Engine break-in and ordering new GAMI's: Engine break-in of the new engine went smoothly. I used Philips XC 20W-50. There were a few long trips involved, which are ideal because the break-in instructions want you to change %HP from 75% to 65% and back roughly every hour. Takeoff and climb was always full power full rich. The principal idea behind break-in is to run the engine with strong compression, which forces the rings against the cylinder wall. The cylinder wall has micro-ridges from honing, and the idea is to smooth the top of the ridges and mate the rings and walls to each other. I made one trip last spring from Minnesota to SoCal for a Mooney PPP, with stops in Albuquerque and some backtracking over AZ to wait out weather. As mentioned, the cylinders were borescoped by my A&P last summer and I was told the break-in was going really well. The engine broke in in less than 50 hours, but I had about a hundred hours when the plane went into this year's annual and we moved to install GAMI injectors. Also as mentioned, during the late stages of break-in I tried to run the engine LOP with the factory injectors in it, but once on the LOP side it was too rough. My old engine had had GAMIs and they worked really well for LOP, so I elected to go back to GAMI's in the new engine at this year's annual. The A&P ran the GAMI lean test and ordered injectors from GAMI, which were installed, and I got the aircraft back in February. I went to test fly it but elected not to leave the ground. The engine was running rough even at idle and while rich. There were major differences between the EGT's in a couple of the cylinders, again, even at idle. I reported these back to my A&P and also had a text message discussion with them about how the GAMI lean test had been conducted. They found an induction leak and fixed that. The lean test had originally been done in the classic way, setting a ROP power settings, then leaning the engine back across peak by only reducing the fuel flow and letting the MP do what it wanted, then downloading the data and sending it to GAMI. The A&P said they assumed the GAMI guys had seen enough engine data to be able to interpret the result. I explained all the stuff I put in my first post about how leaning is different in a 231 from all the other Mooney turbos that I put in my first post. We decided that the A&P would reinstall the TCM factory injectors and we would fly the lean test together, recording the result manually on paper. My A&P flew and I manipulated the fuel and MP controls and did the recording. Unfortunately, it was all on a handwritten sheet which I left with my A&P so they could immediately fax it to GAMI so I did not keep a copy, but I can tell you the significant results. The GAMI instructions are to start the lean test at approximately 65% power and with fuel and MP on the rich of peak side. We started at 25 inches of MP and 10.5 GPH, which I know from past experience is about that. The instructions say to lean in increments of 0.3 gph, so that is what we did, leaning all the way down to 7.5 GPH. The first thing we noticed were the changes in MP that occurred as I reduced the fuel flow. Roughly, a reduction in fuel flow of 0.3 gph did not have a material affect, the MP might go down .1 or stay the same. However, making the second reduction (two increments, that is 0.6 gph) caused the MP to go down by about a half inch. The controls in my aircraft are a vernier for the fuel flow and a straight stick for the MP. I would generally roll the fuel flow down the prescribed 0.3 gph, give the fuel flow and MP a chance to settle, adjust the fuel flow just slightly if needed to get back to the 0.3 increment, and then address the MP. As those who fly a 231 can appreciate, hitting an MP number to the tenth of an inch with the straight stick and variable response from the wastegate controller and turbo are a bit of an art. With persistence, I was able to keep the MP within 0.2" of the original 25". Cylinder #6 peaked nearly right away, at 10 GPH, and cylinder #5 peaked one increment later. The other four cylinders peaked well down from that, a full gallon per minute plus. As mentioned, we did the test all the way down to 7.5 gph, where the engine was getting a little unhappy and there were a few cylinder misses. We did notice that, particularly 5 & 6 saw a second slight rise in EGT when the fuel flow got down around 8 gph. As I understand it, this happens right before the flame goes out. We sent the lean test in to GAMI and got a new set of injectors back in a couple of weeks. Those went into the engine. I have been able to fly the plane three times for a total of about 5 hours since then. The engine is now really smooth and the injectors are working very well. My standard LOP setting in the old engine was 34"/2450/11.1 GPH and I am immediately able to go to that setting with the new GAMI's. Although I used EGT's in the first testing I did to arrive at this setting, I use TIT in practice once the power setting is made. I want to keep TIT at or under 1600. My past experience was that if TIT drifts up over about 1610 it tends to run away and pretty soon you are looking at TITs that are knocking up against the "continuous operation" redline of 1650. So if a LOP cruise the TIT starts moving over 1600 plus a few degrees, I adjust the fuel flow down a tentho or two. Around here, standard maneuvering altitude is about 3000 MSL/1000 AGL and I have not tried higher altitudes yet. On the simple operation side, the fuel flow/MP interlink in the 231 makes operations really eas in the 231 once you understand how to get to a good LOP cruise setting. I will make my 34"/2450/11.1 setting, which gives me very good speed at 3,000, about 141-142 KIAS and a little more TAS. I cruise from one western MN airport to the next at that speed and practice VFR instrument approaches. To slow for an approach all I need to do is to pull the MP back to 24.5-25" and the plane will slow to about 120 TAS. I do not adjust the fuel flow at all, the interlink adjusts it down to about 8.5-8.8 GPH automatically. I find that the exact MP to use for this varies with OAT and the time of year, and rather than use a fixed power setting (i.e. 25") I pull the power back to about that and then adjust MP as needed to get to 120. Next up, in the next few flights I intend to run a GAMI lean test with the new injectors to see if we need any fine tuning, but the engine is running very well and I don't think so. I will also test to see how many degrees lean of peak my power setting is in the new engine and report back. Testing for degrees LOP is a little challenging in the 231. As stated, you can't just make a ROP power setting, put the engine monitor in lean mode, lean down until it give you a signal, and use the degrees lean of peak that the engine monitor reports. The MP is changing by an inch or more when you do that and the result you get is from changing the power settings, not changing the air/fuel ratio. The trick is to pull the engine over to the lean side and then put the monitor in ROP mode, you read that right, ROP mode. Since you are already on the lean side and are going to enrich back to peak, you want to know the first cylinder to peak and that is what ROP mode gives you. The advantage of this is that while there is some movement because of the interlink it it not nearly as much and you can get a decent number for degrees lean of peak. I can already say that EGT's go up when LOP, as they are expected to, and CHTs go down. Where normally my CHT's would be in the vicinity of 380 dF when ROP, they are down about 40 degrees when at LOP cruise.

A year ago my old engine was switched out for a factory new engine. Both were/are TSIO360-LBs. The intention was to get the engine up and running LOP particularly at cruise. That could not be done immediately because TCM required that the factory injectors had to be used for engine break-in. The plan was to install GAMI's at the first annual after break-in and the first stage of that process has now been completed, that is, we have good working GAMIs in the engine and I will be conducting some tests to see if we need some fine tuning or if they are going to work as they now are. The process was not without hiccups. I thought it would be helpful, since over the years there have been many questions about how to run the 231 LOP, if I document what has been done and the fine tuning work I will be doing. The purpose of this post is to just lay some groundwork, and then I will write posts about the progress. I bought the plane in 2009, shortly after getting my PPL. It was in Scottsdale, and I flew home with my then-instructor (not a Mooney instructor). The engine was not in great shape. The turbo was rebuilt that summer at about 700 engine hours. A couple of years later I experienced a loss of oil pressure due to the quick drain eating a piece of plastic (I have written about it here ). That resulted in an emergency descent from 19k to a landing in Canada and shortly after the engine was IRANd because of piston slap at around 1200 hours. I then went to the GAMI live course in Ada, OK to learn how to run the engine and figured out a good way to run it LOP. From that point on the engine made it to nearly 2400 hours before it was replaced, and probably could have gone on living for quite awhile longer, but it was at that point more than 20 years old so I elected to replace it. Engine break-in is 50 hours, during which TCM wants the engine run ROP with their injectors. At cruise they want the engine to alternate every hour between 65 and 75% HP. That is what I did over a good part of last year, until the engine was well broken in. When I run ROP, my fuel flow is normally 13.3 gph or higher, RPMs 2450, MP at about 30". If the CHT's and EGTs start to go higher I ran the engine at as high as 14.5 gph to keep them cool. The engine was looked over by my A&P and borescoped once last year. He found that the break-in was going great and the cylinders were in very good condition. I have a Merlin wastegate controller and a Turboplus intercooler.On one or two occasions I tried to run the engine LOP to see if the TCM injectors were up to the task. I read that TCM has been putting "positionally tuned injectors" in engines and had some hope that the factory injectors would work but they did not, the engine would immediately go rough once on the lean side of peak and it was difficult to keep the temps down, so I waited for the chance to put in GAMIs, which came over this past winter. A few things about LOP operations in a 231. I have excellent instrumentation in my plane, a JPI 930 which has updated at least once by JPI. A GTN 750 TXi is my major GPS, and it is connected to dual revisionary 275's which drive my KFC200 AP through an Icarus SAM GPSS. It all works really well, and of course I see separate EGTs and CHT's for each of the six cylinders as well as TIT. My 930 also provides both Compressor Discharge Temp (the temperature of the induction air coming out of the turbo) and Induction Air Temp (the induction air temp after it has passed through the intercooler). IAT is the temp of the induction air when it is introduced into the engine. When the new engine was installed I also had new baffling put in and that has helped tamp down some of the CHT differences I saw in the old engine. The difference between the hottest (#2) and coldest (#6) in the old engine was generally around 85 dF and higher. It is now about 40 dF. The #6 cylinder sits in the big cowl hole that is unobstructed and tends to run cooler than the others, the others are within roughly 20 dF of each other in the new engine. Running an engine LOP in the 231 requires a clear understanding of what LOP is and how engine monitors generally operate in "lean function" mode. LOP is an air/fuel ratio, it is not by itself a power setting although it can certainly be used to make a power setting that is easy on the engine. As has been written about before in this forum and is taught by the GAMI people, there is a formula that can be used to determine %HP when operating LOP. The formula is fuel flow in gph times a constant that is dependent on the engine compression ratio, divided by rated horsepower. In the 231 the formula is GPH * 13.7/210. However, it needs to be emphasized that this formula only applies if the engine is operating on the lean side of peak. It does not apply at all if the engine is operating on the rich side of peak. %HP on the rich side must be determined from the POH tables. On the lean side, %HP is driven entirely by the fuel flow - increasing and decreasing the MP will not change the power output it will simply change the air/fuel ratio. More on that later. On the rich side, changing the MP definitly changes the power output. An engine is operating properly lean of peak when the EGT of the cylinder that is closest to peak starts to go down when the fuel flow is further reduced. If a reduction in fuel flow causes the temp to go up, then you are still on the rich side of peak and the power formula does not apply. There is a footnote to this which we saw when conducted the GAMI lean test on my new engine, which is that if the engine is already well on the lean side of peak and the pilot continues to lean it well out, there will be a point where the EGT may rise. However, this second rise is not the lean of peak point. An engine is operating rich of peak when the EGT of the cylinder closest to peak falls when more fuel is introduced. "Peak" of course, is the point where the EGT of a cylinder is hottest. It is preferable to use the temperature of the cylinder closest to peak, whether on the lean or rich side, because that means that all the other cylinders are running comfortably further away from peak EGT. Engine monitors have a "lean function." As has been said many times in this forum, the lean function operates using an internal algorithm that makes certain assumptions. The primary assumption is that the pilot starts the lean function while the engine is operating on the rich side of peak. When a pilot engages the lean function and begins to lean the engine, the engine monitor makes the assumption that all other parameters, mainly manifold pressure, remain where they were at the start of the lean function and only the fuel flow is changed. If the MP is materially changed then the entire lean function test is invalid. As I will write later, we ran into this issue in spades when ordering the GAMI injectors for the new engine. Also, when the engine monitor is put in ROP mode, the monitor assumes that the pilot is starting the lean function on the rich side of peak and leaning back towards peak, and because it is desirable to find the cylinder that is operating closest to peak, it finds the first cylinder to peak and uses that to display a "degrees rich of peak" number. Similarly, the monitor assumes that when conducting leaning in the "LOP mode" the pilot starts on the rich side of peak, leans across peak, and the monitor then finds the last cylinder to peak, which is the cylinder operating closest to peak on the lean side. It is important to understand that the monitor has no way of knowing whether the engine is actually running ROP or LOP, it is making assumptions. So ---- putting the monitor in ROP mode simply tells the monitor to find the first cylinder to peak, and putting it in LOP mode simply finds the last cylinder to peak, and that is all. If you have allowed the MP to change during this process, the process is invalid and the monitor has no idea whether the engine is running LOP or ROP. This is important in the 231 because the Merlin wastegate controller is not a truly automatic controller. It is a differential controller; it maintains a set difference between the induction air going into the engine and the air coming out of the compressor. The purpose of that is to tamp down bootstrapping (increasing the MP increases the exhaust flow into the turbo which then increases the MP even further). The Merlin does not maintain a set MP, it is up to the pilot to monitor and set the MP. Changes in the fuel flow in the 231 will change the MP for two reasons. One, there is an interlink in the 231 fuel system that is specifically designed to link fuel flow to MP, so that if the pilot makes a power setting and then decides he wants to slow to let's say, approach speed, he/she can simply pull back the MP and the interlink does its best to maintain the original air/fuel ratio by also pulling back the fuel flow. This does not work quite as well in the opposite direction, that is, when pulling the fuel flow back the relationship to MP is not maintained quite as well, but it does operate. The other factor is the turbo itself. If you pull back the fuel flow you reduce the exhaust flow to the turbo which further reduces its output, meaning the MP is reduced. The point is, if the 231 pilot starts the leaning process with a rich of peak MP and fuel flow and then leans the fuel flow back and does nothing to adjust the MP, the MP will start coming back as well, invalidating the "lean function" process. These are challenges in running a "GAMI lean function" in the 231 and in making power settings, but although it sounds complicated, it can be very much simplified in operating the aircraft. However, the 231 pilot needs to understand what is going on in this detail to operate a healthy engine. Next post: engine break-in of the new engine and ordering new GAMI's, and the mistakes we made and fixed.

The service ceiling of the 231 The service ceiling of the 231 is 24,000. At least that is the ""Maximum operating altitude" in my POH. You aren't going to get much higher anyway. The critical altitude is 22,5, give or take depending on day temps, even with the Merlin, and with the MP knob all the way in and the MP dropping the climb rate is very anemic. I went there once to say I did it, so now I have done it and don't have to do it again.

@Pinecone. I get that he is just running the formula and displaying the numbers. I apologize, I am not looking to start any arguments. Its my own frustration. We have had long discussions on the forum about LOP operations for over ten years now, and just when I think people are getting it, up comes another post where the pilot says he is running LOP and he is clearly not, he just thinks he is, which is bad for the engine. Trying to be helpful.

@Marc_B I am a little surprised you have LOP fuel flow numbers as high as 12.8 GPH that are lean of peak. What manifold pressure do you use to make a LOP mixtures with a 12.8 GPH fuel flow?

I ordered a new TSIO360LB from TCM a couple of years ago. Supposed to take 8 months. More like a year. BTW the new engine costs was only about 7,000 more than the factory reman, and either one was far more expensive than a few years earlier. I finally got my engine and it is a nice one, but the plane was down for more than a year.

I don’t have an SB but I can tell you that the LOP formula divides by rated horsepower of the engine, in your case 220. That is what “percent power” means, it is percent of the engine’s rated horsepower. But just remember that LOP is an air/fuel ratio, not a power setting. In other words, just because you are running the engine at 10 GPH or whatever number you come up with from applying the formula to your engine does not necessarily mean you are running lean of peak. You need sufficient manifold pressure to make the air/fuel mixture lean. It probably does not make much difference in this instance since you can run the engine LOP, ROP or at peak if you are operating at or under 65% HP, which you probably would be. In other words, it does not matter much whether you are lean of peak or not at a 65% power setting, it is safe for the engine. But it is important to know that you are actually operating lean of peak because the formula only applies to lean of peak operations, it definitely does not apply to rich of peak operations. %HP for rich of peak operations must come from your POH table.

I live in Minnesota where we see some truly impressive cold temps on a routine basis. Every year, at the start of the winter, I have my A&P install an oil cooler block. It is just some blocks of foam taped together that fits in the oil cooler. In the K's the OT must remain above 100 dF. This is in the POH. The issue is that if the oil gets too viscous it fails to pass through the very thin bearing space of the turbo, where it provides both cooling and lubrication. You don't want your turbo to go without oil. I have often run with the OT down to 100 dF without incident, but for me it becomes a real concern on super cold days if the OT want to be colder than that. I don't see any problem with 125 or 150, I ran the old engine there quite a bit in the winter and it went several hundred hours over TBO and the turbo went several hundred hours past the 1,000 mark. After 1,000 hours I had the turbo borescoped very annual just to be sure and there were no problems. But use your own best judgment. There was just a thread in one of the other forums on cold weather ops. One other thing to note is that if it is really cold, say anything below 15 dF, it is important to spend time on the ground running your checklists and letting the engine warm the engine compartment. There are some non-engine-attached components in there that need to be above freezing, notably the air/oil separator. If it freezes it blocks the breather with the result that the compression in the running engine causes the oil to exit through every available orifice. You can get remarkable oil streaks as wide as 18" down the sides of the full length of the aircraft. I am sure the brake master cylinder would appreciate a little heat also.

I have an LB and a JPI930 but in all other respects about the same as yours. I don't think you are running ROP at all at 11 GPH and 29". In my engine, ROP at that MP and 2450 RPM would be 13+ something GPH to get to about 125 degrees ROP. Maybe the problem is, what makes you think you are running LOP at that setting? Here is what I suspect. I don't know your engine monitor, but using my JPI the standard instructions are to start by running the engine well on the ROP side, put the monitor in lean of peak mode for leaning, and then lean out until the monitor tells you that you are LOP. Select your degrees LOP from the monitor and there you are. The problem is that this method is completely wrong for the 231. Lean of Peak and Rich of Peak are air/fuel ratio settings. They are not power settings although they can be used to make a power setting. The leaning mechanism in the monitors I am familiar with are all algorithms, in other words, our aircraft have no sensors that directly measure the air/fuel ratio the engine is running at. The algorithms I am familiar with all make the same assumptions, (1) that you start on the Rich of Peak side, and (2) that while you are leaning the fuel all other things remain equal, most importantly, that the manifold pressure remains where you set it when you started your leaning process. This works in the 252 and other turbo Mooneys that have truly automatic wastegate controllers that maintain MP where you set it while you lean out the fuel. The problem with the 231, even with the Merlin, is that MP does not remain where you set it if you start reducing the fuel flow. The Merlin is a differential controller, not a density controller. There are several things going on. One, there is an interlink in the TSIO360 engine so that if you set a power setting of, let's say, 30" and 13.3 GPH, and then decide you want to slow to approach speed, you can pull the MP back and the interlink automatically reduces the fuel flow to maintain roughly the same air/fuel ratio that you had at 30/13.3. Notice that when you do this the air/fuel ratio is not changing, you are still running ROP even though the EGTs have all dropped from their starting point. This interlink in my experience does not work as effectively when you pull the fuel back as it does when you pull the MP back, but it does work. So the MP is dropping as you lean the fuel. Second, as the engine begins to produce less power the turbo produces less compression, further causing the MP to drop as you pull the fuel back. These things are causing you to violate the basic assumption of the leaning algorithm - that MP stays steady while fuel flow is reduced, thus changing the air/fuel ratio from a rich setting to a lean setting. In short, if you do your leaning this way all you have done is reduce power, but you have done little to change the air/fuel ratio. The engine monitor will most likely detect a drop in EGT in all the cylinders, which is their signal to tell you that you are running lean of peak when the monitor really has no idea where you are running any longer. We just did a lean test on my new engine. The proscribed method is to start at an approximately 65% Rich of Peak setting, then slowly lean in increments of .3 GPH and record the EGT's on each cylinder. We chose 24.8 MP, 2400 RPMs, and 9.5 GPH, which I know from experience is a ROP setting. A move of .3 GPH did not change the MP much but a move of .6 changed it by a few tenths, enough that for about every two moves of .3 GPH we had to bump the MP back up a little. If you make a relatively big fuel move, like 11 GPH to 9.5 GPH you will get a fairly large MP decrease - on the order of 1" or more - and that invalidates the lean test you think you are running. If it helps - if I want to fly at least 125 degrees ROP in my engine at an MP of 29", I need a fuel flow of 13.3 GPH to 13.5 GPH. A setting of 11 GPH is going to be a LOP setting most likely, but not a very LOP setting at 29". At 29" you are probably just a few degrees LOP, pretty close to peak. Anything in the 12's is going to be a Peak setting or worse, around 50 degrees rich of peak. There is more to it, but based on what I would see in my engine at those power settings your 9.5 setting is probably a 60-65% power LOP setting and your 11 GPH setting is probably not lean of peak at all or if it is, it is just barely lean of peak, but it is not rich of peak. You are running too close to peak.

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.