jlunseth

You will hear that Mooney’s are too fast to learn IFR in. Just remember that you can slow a Mooney down and fly around all day like a Skyhawk if you want to.

Well some of us Mooney pilots made the west coast event even though we live in Minnesota.

Shoot, +/- 10 kts is a daily event in the western part of the Midwest.

The Safety Foundation is still putting on four or five programs a year in different locations around the country. I went to Santa Maria. There are two left this year, in Vermont and in Texas. Great instructors.I have been five times, still learn something new each time. I agree I am not sure the manual would help much without the classes, more like a slide deck.

I haven’t had the 256 itself fail, but did have a vacuum pump go out but in VMC. I knew it right away, of course, because the annunciator and the vacuum gauge let you know. But the 256 was happily spinning so I left it in control for awhile. It wasn’t long before we had gained about 600 feet. The 256 looked perfectly normal but it wasn’t. We found an airport (KBIS) spent the night there on a cot and got it fixed. The incident, although completely safe, left an impression. I now have two 275’s and a separate vacuum operated AI.

The mic in the mask I got was mounted so that it was vertical. The sound was terrible. The mike needs to touch your lips, yes, but you have to bend the wires so that it is oriented horizontally or touching the lips does not do much good.

@1980Mooney. There are several Federal laws that apply to noise abatement. Most importantly, the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) makes clear that jurisdiction over noise abatement is exclusively Federal. The doctrine is called “Federal pre-emption.” There is case law holding that the authority over noise abatement is exclusively Federal, in other words, local (meaning state, county, city, etc.) authorities may not attempt to legislate or control noise abatement. That said, there are far too many “voluntary” programs, etc. It would be a good issue to take up to the SCt. at this point. We have a “voluntary” program at my home base, KFCM. I fly often for Angel Flight. We don’t get to choose when the patients need us.

I write because in some recent threads, the “Chevron deference” doctrine has been the subject of discussion. Under the doctrine, which stemmed from a case 40 years ago, the Courts gave deference to an agency’s own rules and interpretations of its rules. In other words, a Federal agency could not only promulgate a rule, it could then decide what the rule meant and how it was to be applied, and the Court’s were not to interfere with that interpretation. This resulted in what some viewed as abuses of the administrative power. On Thursday and Friday of this week the Supreme Court decided two cases that are likely to dramatically change how Federal agencies (including the FAA) operate. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo the Court expressly overruled the original Chevron case. “Chevron deference” is gone. The day before, in SEC v. Jarkesy, the Court determined that there is a right to jury trial in instances where an agency seeks to impose a civil financial penalty for violations of its rules. Previously, an agency could decide whether to proceed against a defendant in Court, where the rules of discovery and rules of evidence apply, or before an administrative judge where they do not. The effect of Loper is that an agency is no longer the sole decider of what its governing statute or its rules mean. This has two effects. First, Federal agencies unfortunately have used their authority under Chevron to pass rules expanding their own authority beyond the scope of the statute under which that authority was granted by Congress. As an example (I am deliberately staying away from aviation-type examples), for many years the EPA asserted the right to regulate farmers’ fields. Their jurisdiction extends to “navigable” waterways, and they interpreted “navigable” to include areas where water ponds in the spring. A long battle was fought over this with Chevron very much at play, in other words, the agency asserted it was the sole decider of the extent of its power to regulate. Second, agencies will be limited in their ability to apply their own rules and regulations simply by reinterpreting a rule. Under Jarkesy, enforcement proceedings in which an agency seeks a monetary penalty will be required to proceed in Court where the defendant will have the ability to defend himself, and have the matter decided by a jury of his peers. In Jarkesy, the SCt distinguished between enforcement proceedings the purpose of which is solely to restore the status quo, from those where a monetary penalty is sought. So it remains to be seen whether Jarkesy will apply, for example, to proceedings for the suspension or revocation of a license as opposed to a monetary penalty of some sort. These cases - and we may see more aimed at limiting the power of the administrative state - will unquestionably have an affect on how any Federal agency, including the FAA, operates. Personally, I have had nothing but good experiences with the FAA, and as Federal agencies go, it has always appeared to me to want to serve and cooperate rather than mandate and restrict. But things will change. In practice, and from long experience in the legal field, I can tell you that it will take some time for these two decisions to have an effect. When major precedents come down there is always some resistance in the lower courts, which find ways around the new precedent. For example, in Loper the SCt said that the Federal courts may, in deciding what a statute means, consider the agencies interpretation in light of the expertise of the agency in the particular field. So in lower courts sympathetic to an agency, the court will simply use that rule to adopt the agency’s interpretation, right or wrong, and it will up to the appellate courts to straighten it out. There will also be quite a few cases in the lower courts trying to sort out what Loper and Jarkesy mean. So don’t anyone think they can now go fly under bridges.

I see you base in Sedona AZ. The “high, hot” climbs out of western airports in the summer are the most challenging as far as CHTs are concerned. Rather than reducing your power, you might try a full power/full rich climb. Strong fuel flow is the best way to keep cylinders cool in a high hot climb (or any other climb for that matter). The POH spec calls for 22.5-24.0 GPH at full power. It is actually best, if you can persuade your A&P to do it, to set the fuel flow for about 25 GPH. You can always reduce fuel flow with the red knob but the biggest problem I have run into is that A&Ps persistently set the fuel flow too low, so a full power, full rich climb will be at, say, 21.0 GPH. Too little fuel, cylinders will run hot. Also, in both my 231 engines (I replaced one in the past year) I have noticed that there is a fuel flow bump as the engine approaches full power. In other words, in the area of cruise settings you will see a more or less linear increase in fuel flow as you change settings, but as you approach full power the fuel flow will bump up more rapidly in the last inch or so of manifold pressure. You really want that full fuel flow, so even though it may seem counterintuitive, full power is the way to get the best fuel flow and actually will keep the engine cooler than a reduced power climb in my experience. Lastly, what is “full power” in the 231? If you don’t have an intercooled engine the answer is simple, 40” MP/2700 RPM/24.0GPH . In the intercooled engine it is a little bit of a moving target. If you look at the STC instructions for setting fuel flow with an intercooler, there is a table that the mechanic is supposed to use, which says what MP will provide full power at what OAT. Most of us think of full power as 36” with the intercooler. It is actually a little closer to 37” and varies with OAT. I generally use 36” for full power climbs, but on takeoff it does not offend me if the MP gets up to 37. The important thing is to use an MP that gets you to full fuel flow, which is the way to keep the engine cool. Two more things. One, if you want full power, and I think you do, you have to use 2700. A lower setting will reduce the fuel flow. Two, I climb at 500 fpm. Yields good airspeed and cooling. I can climb at over a thousand in the winter here in MN, but not in summer temps. Final thought: The baffling in my old engine was not ideal. I would see temps like your 405 in high hot climbs quite often. When I had the new engine installed I was a little more demanding about the new baffling, insisting that all the leaks, seams, and wrinkles needed to get sealed. The temps in the new engine are quite a bit cooler, I mean by about 20 degrees, and also more consistent between the cylinders, so in the old engine the difference between hottest and coolest was around 85 degrees, now it is around 45. In the new engine with the new baffling if I see a temp climbing over 400 on a cylinder it is a fuel flow issue that I can adjust for rather than a systemic problem that I could not adjust for as was the case with the old baffling.

My reaction also. I don’t suppose he has insurance, probably can’t get it.

@LANCECASPER +1 on Bolduc. They are at KANE. I had to do an IRAN on the old engine several years ago. They did a super job. Bruce Jaeger was my instructor for my commercial after that, rode in the plane several times, and said it was the smoothest running 231 engine he had ever experienced. I should have just done an overhaul there, I liked that old engine. To the OP, on the cost of an overhaul v. new, you really need to go over carefully with the overhauler what is in the price. For example, what about the “spider” - the fuel distribution system. Is that in the overhaul, or are you going to have to send it to a shop and pay them. Overhaul shops don’t usually do fuel system work. Then what is schedule for completion and the reputation of the second shop. Same for the turbo, alternator, exhaust, injectors. I think you will find you get a lot less in a field overhaul than you expect. When I did the IRAN with Bolduc (see above) we sent the spider and the turbo out to other shops. The turbo shop was fast. The spider was slow and was not right the first two times it came back. And of course you don’t find that one of the peripherals was done wrong until the overhauled engine comes back and goes in the aircraft. It’s a piecemeal approach and you, or your mechanic, are in charge of piecing it all together.

Let me put it this way. I flew with one of the Mooney PPP instructors once who also flew a 231. He asked, “Do you ride the brakes or watch the lights flash?” I immediately knew what he meant, do I taxi at low idle and watch the annunciator telling me “Low Volts” or do I keep the RPMs and therefore the amps up and ride the brakes. The answer in my case was that I would keep the amps up and periodically brake to keep the taxi speed somewhat acceptable. In the first year I had my aircraft I had incandescent landing lights. I was doing some night pattern work and was pulling past the little shack that served as the Thunderbird FBO at the time when I over leaned the engine and it stalled. I could not restart. The combination of slow taxi and the draw of the incandescents had depleted the battery in the space of about an hour of pattern work. Several of the instructors came out to push me in. I remembered that, hence my fast taxi way of doing it. Also, I had incandescent strobes. I learned not to switch the strobes on before firing up the engine or there might not be enough juice for the engine. I actually researched whether the strobes are required by the regs to be on before engine start, when I went for my Commercial checkride, and provided what I found to the examiner and told her why I would not be switching the strobes on until the engine was running. To this day, STROBE is the one item in red in my checklist, so that I remember to switch the strobes on immediately after the engine is running. I now have LEDs all around and these things are not an issue any more. The new alternator provides plenty of current during taxi. Nice to have. PS Yes, the problem is/was common to the 231. At one point Mooney tried installing a 100 amp alternator to cure it, in place of the standard alternator which I think was around 75 amps. The 100 amp had no effect because the problem was that the direct drive gearing would not turn the alternator fast enough at low idle, regardless of the max amperage of the alternator.

I went through this last year, or should I say the last two years. Bought a new engine from TCM. The price difference between Reman and new was small, as I recall the 7500 someone mentioned is about right. Not stated so far is that you get all new peripherals with a new engine. So, for example, are you going to simply take the old alternator off and put it back on the reman or rebuild? The alternator, and especially the coupler, are a weak point in the engine and you really need to replace those. One of the things I have liked about the new engine is that the alternator is much better than what we used to have on these engines. The old alternators would not charge at an idle speed of below about 1100 rpms, so taxi was always at that speed or higher. The new alternator charges down to 900 something. On the other hand, the 12 weeks someone mentioned does not fit my experience. We ordered the engine from TCM in early 2022 and it was supposed to be delivered in about 8 months. Planned ahead so the new engine would be there when the next annual was due. TCM then went through the crankshaft weight AD in 2023 which did not affect the 360LB except that TCM was tearing down Cirrus engines for months. So actual delivery was a year after the order. The aircraft went out of annual in April so I flew it to the shop and it sat until the very late new engine showed up. Then of course the engine needs to get installed and there will be gremlins in any project of that magnitude. If I had it to do over again I would have done a field overhaul with a reputable overhauler. Also, the new engine price is net of your core trade-in, in other words you don’t pay 81k and get a 20k core value. You pay 81k. I do like the new engine. CHTs are cooler, the new alternator is nice, etc. But the aircraft was out of service for nearly all of 2023. Here in MN, it is not easy to fly a 231 from November to April because of icing conditions, so of course, the aircraft went into the shop late March-early April and then sat all summer waiting for the engine and then the install, and then came out in December when it was difficult to fly again. Maybe it was just my experience, but service has been awful especially on large projects needing skilled labor, since the pandemic. Expect a painful experience.

I have the Precise Flight simple system, tubing with a ball valve and the mustache cannula. I also have one miked mask. I have had several passengers on cannulas above 18k and none have complained. I used to use an oximeter routinely and so did the passengers, but eventually I found that looking at the ball valve once in awhile and correctly adjusting it kept O2 levels where needed, so I have not used the oximeter for awhile. I did not find that the mustache cannula was helpful. The ball valve has one scale for an ordinary cannula and another for the mustache (generally lower flow levels). The oximeter did not show that the lower flow levels were working. Others on this site have had a different experience. I would contact Precise Flight and ask some questions before jumping in to the demand conserver. If you read the 231 manual you will see that it has a regulating valve in the built-in system that is more than just an on/off switch. It says that O2 will flow "appropriate to the altitude." This indicates to me that the valve in the aircraft increases or decreases the flow depending on altitude. The conserver also increases and decreases flow. So if it were me, I would want to know if the conserver expects a set flow once the O2 is turned on, and if the valve in the aircraft and the valving in the conserver might not cooperate with each other. I didn't get the conserver so I never asked the question. My system is old enough now and has been used enough that one of the plastic hoses has cracked and needs to be replaced. It is easy to disinfect the system after use. Isopropyl and Q-tips, I do it regularly since I often fly with compromised medical patients in the aircraft.

When the Victoria crash (the Bravo) happened several of us did some research on incidents where a Mooney “came apart” in flight. As I recall there had been about four prior to the Victoria crash, but in the prior incidents the failure was in the negative. I say “about” because at least one of the prior reports was fairly cryptic and it was a little difficult to determine what the failure mode was. The Bravo crash is the only one that I recall reading about where the failure was in the positive. It was unfortunately dramatic, there was door cam footage of the plane hitting the ground nose high with both wings failed upward. One side of the horizontal stabilizer had also departed.

I used to use the stem on a sump cup to sample fuel from the gascolator. Then one day on a trip out to MT the gascolator jammed open when I did that. I was able to close it by climbing into the aircraft and pulling the ring a couple of times, but I would hate to have it jam open in the air. Wouldn’t know what was happening until too late and it drains both tanks not just one. I have to say, I don’t fly into the flight levels as much anymore as I did the first few years I had my aircraft. Many of my flights now are Angel Flights and I don’t want to take medically vulnerable passengers up that high. But I have flown in the cold a lot and in the flight levels a lot. Once as cold as -54 dF for a couple of hours. I used to put isopropyl in the tanks but quit doing it because I never had a problem with freezing water in the fuel. Now, if I were to fill up in FL where the fuel is sitting in a nice warm tank and could hold water, and then fly into hard core minus degrees further north I might think about it. But generally, the fuel is already cold on the ground. Not sayin’ don’t add the isopropyl, heck, maybe I will start doing it again, I still have quite a few pints left. But I put in a lot of hours up there with no iso and no freezing either.

I bought my aircraft in 2009 with a Turboplus in it. About a year later I installed a JPI 930. Compliance with the Turboplus STC requires knowing the Differential Temperature, which is the difference between the Compressor Discharge Temperature (the air coming out of the turbo and before the intercooler) and the Inducation Air Temperature (the air going into the induction system after the intercooler). The 930 has that feature, and it allows me to see with some precision what the intercooler contributes. As those who have the factory (nonintercooled) engine know, there is a CDT redline of 280 dF. The purpose is to protect against detonation caused by overly hot induction air. On my JPI, I can see what would happen if the intercooler were not there, and what does happen with the intercooler present. I don’t see how it would have been possible to fly a factory 231 much above 17k at least in the summer because the CDT hits redline. One could make the climb more shallow which helps a little, but there are no cooling fins on the turbo, it does not help much. Meanwhile, the IAT is somewhere around 100 dF cooler. This renders CDT essentially a meaningless number and better yet, helps the engine run much cooler. At high altitude cruise the Diff Temp is usually around 100 to 125 dF. My aircraft has no problem climbing to the Critical Altitude that the Merlyn allows, which is around 22,500 depending on day temps. I don’t doubt the OPs numbers. I have a new engine in my aircraft which is now broken it. I installed new baffling with it. In the late winter, which is chilly around here, the cruise cylinder temps were in the 320 range. Except I have one cylinder, #5, that is doggedly colder than the rest (it sits in the big hole in the cowling) and generally ran in the 285 range. Overall, the Turboplus is an excellent addition. It helps the engine run much cooler. I would say that the power setting charts are a little conservative, but whose counting? A few years after I bought the aircraft I had the Turboplus sent in to be cleaned by the manufacturer. At that point it was about ten years old and the fins were pretty dirty. Really helped, and the temps went down a noticeable jump. Need to do that periodically, and carefully following their instructions so as not to damage fins.

I get the point of the saying, but anyone who floats around in the sky on wings is bold. Can’t escape that part.

That is correct. Also it is worth noting that they hand out a book to each pilot with suggested settings for each model. There is a pilot’s banquet on Saturday night. Really good instructors, all well versed in Mooneys. Went to Santa Maria, that was my fifth or sixth. They give out a course completion certificate, I received that and submitted it with my insurance application as soon as I got back. At age 75 I got a renewal quote in two days. Don’t like the price going up every year, but at least I am able to fly.

Me too. I intentionally kept a vacuum operated AI.

There are quite a few 231’s out there. The UL is usually in the 900-1000+ vicinity. The turbo is more manual than the 252, the pilot is responsible for MP. They are much more available than the Encore or even the 252. The GW went up in the 252’s, especially the Encore, but as in the general progression up the model ladder with Mooney, the UL did not always go up as fast as the GW, or even at all. The beauty of the M20K’s in my opinion is that they are fuel thrifty. You don’t need or want to carry 100+ gallons of fuel if you can fly LOP. Any of the K engines will do that if set up properly.

There are several for sale on eBay and Bennet and Southeast Aerospace both carry used or refurbished units.

I'll just say this. It was more than a year from ordering before the new engine should up for my 231. It was supposed to be 8 months, but TCM spent several months disassembling and inspecting Cirrus engines due to the crankshaft AD. After the engine was installed it was several more months before all the gremlins were gone ... I hope. In retrospect, I should have had the old engine overhauled.

Manifold Pressure. Throttle. If stuck at low power, well, the aircraft cannot stay in the air.

Just a cautionary tale to all. One of the flight schools in our area had a J that did not fly a lot and did not get the best maintenance. The Chief Pilot at the time, a real classy woman who sometimes flew in heels, took another instructor out to check him out in a J. It was December I think (so snow on the ground). The MP cable jammed at low power, could not be moved. They were forced to make an off-field. She had to walk for help through the snow in her heels. No injuries, no damage. Lots of reports to the NTSB and FAA though, in the aftermath.