jlunseth

It is worth saying that while I agree completely with FlyBoomers statement that LOP yields lower CHTs, if you come from a mainly Normally Aspirated background, you need to understand that does not apply to climb. LOP in climb in a turbo will generally yield bad things, such as high temps. There is an NA technique - leaning in the climb - that has no application in turbos frankly. The difference is that the NA makes less and less power, and will experience a lower and lower MP as it climbs, and if fuel flow is not changed the mixture will get richer. In the 231, we also experience a reduction of power in the climb because the wastegate controller is not a truly automatic one, it does not maintain a set MP. But we pilots do, we adjust the MP in and we are back at full MP. Effectively, the engine does not experience a reduction in MP and therefore does not need a downward adjustment in fuel flow. The engine needs full fuel flow at full power (plus open cowl flaps and a decent airspeed) to stay cool in a prolonged hot climb.

No, not firewall. I generally use 36” and 2700 RPM as full power. The 36”, as best as I can determine, comes from an old article on the 231 which suggests using that. Actually, full power appears to be in the vicinity of 37”. That comes from the Turboplus intercooler STC, which modifies the instructions for setting the full power fuel flow. According to the STC, full power varies depending on OAT at the ground when the work is done, but generally the number is 37”. I use 36, but if the power rises toward 37 I just let it. (The fuel flow does tend to rise on takeoff because airspeed is changing.) Although it seems counterintuitive, if you are doing a high hot climb and have an intercooler in a 231, it may help cool the engine a little to set power at 37 rather than 36 or lower, because the fuel flow will come up with the increased MP, and you need more fuel flow. If you do not have the Turboplus in your aircraft, full power is 40” and 2700. The MP only ever gets firewalled if you attain and/or exceed Critical Altitude, which varies a little with the day, but is about 22,500 in my Merlyn equipped engine. It will be quite a bit lower in the non-Merlyn equipped engine. The Merlyn does not affect the full power setting, the intercooler does affect that setting.

The CHT book limit for the 231 engine is 460 but you should not ever get near that number. My target is also 380, although there are circumstances where I will see higher temps. I fly for Angel Flight which takes me pretty much all over the country except the west side of the Rockies. I will see higher temps in a high hot climb especially from a western airport, e.g. Montana, Colorado, the western Dakotas and the like. My plane is getting a new engine (the old one was 20 years old and several hundred over TBO) and hopefully better baffling, so maybe I will get lower temps from the new engine. 380 is pretty typical at cruise but one or two cylinders would creep up over 400 in those high hot climbs. I keep my climb rate at about 500 fpm partly for passengers ears and to keep the climb temps down. A problem with the 231 is getting your A&P to set the fuel flow high enough. Invariably, when mine would come back from annual, the full rich flow would be 22 something. It really needs to be about 24. I fly LOP quite a bit. 34” MP, 11.1 GPH, 2450 is my standard cruise setting. That works well up to somewhere around 12-16k (depends on OAT), where TIT will become difficult to control. The keeps the CHTs nice and cool. It gives me 71% HP and nifty speeds.

I don’t think that tells you anything. It means that there is some grip of the drive shaft by the coupler, but the forces at work when the engine is running are quite a bit greater than when you turn the prop by hand. Worth saying that there are other things that many other things that could cause there to be no charge, alternator, voltage regulator, even a loose wire. The coupler failure is a known issue with the 231 however. I watched the video that A64 put up. I don’t recognize that as a 231 coupler assembly. It may be a different style of coupler specifically for Plane Power alternators, I don’t know, but among other things the bushing I mentioned is not present. The install is not complicated. Have a good Mooney A&P do the install if a coupler is what you need.

The failure mode in those articles is a different issue from a coupler that has been in an engine for a few years, then failing. Believe me, I know. One of the couplers I had to install was put in by a non-Mooney shop. The coupler is held on the shaft by a tiny cotter pin at the outboard end of the shaft. The small cotter pin can be used because there is a bushing inside the coupler that keeps it running concentrically on the shaft and therefore no vibration or chatter. The shop that installed mine did not put the bushing in, and its absence is not visible on inspection. That allowed the coupler to rotate off-center and hammer the tiny cotter pin to death, with the result that the pieces of cotter pin and the coupler fell off into the running engine. I was lucky, there was no damage and all pieces and parts were accounted for in the sump. But as I said, those articles are talking about a different issue from the one where the charging amperage does not come up until after the engine warms some. That means the rubber coupler lining, which serves as a clutch, is wearing past tolerance and and the assembly needs to be replaced. The “warm-up” phenomenon is particularly prone to happen in late fall/winter when the temps start to get cold. It is certainly true that careful install by a knowledgeable Mooney shop that has the repair manual in hand is necessary. However, the failure mode where the coupler assembly departs the shaft does not show pre-departure symptoms, not in my experience. The assembly of the coupler to the shaft suffers sudden failure and the coupler assembly departs the shaft. You won’t get intermittent charging and then no charging, you just get no charging period. Then it is a matter of luck whether the departed parts cause damage in the running engine or not. As long as the coupler is in place the engine will not suffer damage because that is what the coupler is there for - if the alternator freezes for some reason the rubber liner lets go its grip on the drive shaft and the alternator no longer functions but the engine is not damaged. The coupler needs to be installed by a competent Mooney mechanic who has the repair book in hand. I kept that coupler assembly for several years so I could take pictures and people could see. Have since tossed it.

Well, the worst that can happen is that you have to fly without electricity. Drop the gear while you have electrical power (mind the gear extension speed) and switch the master off. You are now truly VFR while you fly to a safe place to land. You will find that the single battery in the 231 has practically no value as a backup, you might get a half hour out of it but then you have nothing for radios when you approach and land, you will be truly NORDO. Hopefully you are at stable cruise so you can just leave the engine settings alone until you reduce power for landing, you will not have panel instruments to tell you anything about temps. Not to say you should take off knowing you have a problem, but as emergencies go it is nothing like an engine out. A few years ago I went through a number of couplers. They were coming from the same aftermarket source, although I don’t know for sure what that was (my A&P was buying them until he got disgusted). They would last for a trip or two and then fail. I want to say we went through four of them in the pace of roughly a year. We finally went direct to Mooney and bought one. It was much more expensive in the short run, but lasted five or six years until engine replacement, so much less expensive in the long run.

One thing you learn is that it is best to go multiple small bags rather than one or two big bags. The big bags are a pain to wrestle out of the luggage compartment of a Mooney.

Or out the quick drain. Had the joy of that experience once, causing an emergency landing in Canada. Small fragment of plastic was caught in the quick drain seal. Oil loss got progressively worse of a couple of months. Little or no oil on the belly until the final episode.

The answer is probably going to vary with the model. I have a good engine monitor (930) and all the lights have long since been converted to LEDs. Even so, at anything less than 1100 I will most likely get a Low Volts annunciation. This is a known issue in the 231. It has a direct drive alternator and the alternator simply does not make much current at low RPMs. For awhile, Mooney was supplying 100 amp alternators (the standard one is 70 or 80 as I recall), but that did not change the issue with low volts at low RPMs. 231 owners have a choice of riding the brakes on and off during taxi, or watching the low volts lights flash. That’s the 231 and its direct drive alternator. Other models have completely different alternators and drive systems. Since yours is 28V it is obviously not a 231, but how good the charging is a low RPMs is still going to vary from one model to the next, and what kind of load you have on your system.

Hopefully we all work with ATC to try to stay out of an icing layer as long as possible if we find ourselves in possible icing, but there are circumstances where they have no choice. Since we are talking about FIKI systems here and the decision to fly or not when there is probable icing, if you are non-FIKI, working with ATC to stay out of the icing layer as long as possible before descending is Play B. Plan A is not to be in the air at all.

Well, living in the Great Lakes area I can think of many times it would be useful. For about six months we have low stratus that is not very thick but is below freezing. The problem is that it hangs around at about the altitude where all our instruments procedures happen. Not much risk in going up through it, FIKI or no, but the problem is you have to come back down at some point and sure don’t want to get caught right in the stratus layer because that is where ATC needs you for the approach. Hopefully, if you find yourself in some kind of inadvertent icing event at cruise, you have left yourself an out and you use it. But if you have to fly an approach to land the possibility is there of being hung up in an icing layer for a protracted period, unable to exit. It would not be unsafe with FIKI, but definitely would be if no FIKI. That is what stops a lot of us from flying much in the winter around here, or at least, speaking for myself, it stops me.

I did the same thing a few years ago, called CAV. I was told that converting an inadvertent to FIKI is actually more costly than adding FIKI to a stock wing. Basically, the inadvertent system has to be removed and a new system installed. So you have the cost of removal plus the cost of installing new.

Phillips 66 card gives a discount for Angel Flight fuel purchases.

I live in MN. Going in to the winter I typically have the cowl flaps adjusted so they will fully close, in order to retain heat in the engine compartment. Going in to the summer I have them adjusted to "in trail," which is slightly open. Allowing just a little air to dump out of the bottom makes a big difference in summer heat. I agree with the guys suggesting you increase your speed and decrease the climb rate. I climb at 500 fpm, especially in the summer. Gives me a TAS of about 120 and helps the engine quite a bit compared to even 700 fpm. Check your baffling. Mine is currently being replaced, the old baffling had small folds in the port side which caused the last cylinder on that side to run quite a bit hotter than the others, especially in climb. I have a 231 (turbo charged piston with mechanically adjustable cowl flaps).

I think I must be misunderstanding. Vx and Vy do change with altitude. The change is not large unless you are quite high, but if you are planning a Vx climb over a peak at 14k you need to adjust your Vx as you go up. I don’t use Vy at all, and Vx maybe once a year, so it does not matter much to me. I do, however, remember having to adjust Vx to climb out of Kalispell once several years ago, which is how I learned it is better to go to the off-airport VOR and spiral up than get in a hurry to climb straight out with a strong wind at your tail.

Most of the airports in that general area are flatland airports, as someone already said about KSAF. Taos, SAF, Double Eagle are all like that. They are not airports tucked into a mountain valley with high peaks close by, such as Kalispell. The only one I can think of in that area where you really have to be on your toes is Angelfire, known for its treachery. There is a good video on YouTube from a local pilot with all the ins and outs of landing and leaving from Angelfire. One trick I learned early, for a safe climb out to cross mountain peaks, is that most of the airports along the Rockies have a VOR that is offset from the airport and inside the valley. The standard climb out is not to go straight at the peaks, but fly to the VOR, which may be north or south of the field, and if necessary spiral up. This technique will come into play on days when the winds aloft are blowing rapidly toward the peaks. I haven’t had any difficulty at all, either landing or taking off, from any airport in that general area, in my 231. Have not done Angelfire though. Turbulence, as noted, is harsh. I attended a Mooney PPP there about three years ago and everyone was affected. It is mostly ground turbulence, so you can fly to, say, 5,000 AGL and be out of it or mostly out of it, but 5,000 AGL is about 10 MSL in that area, and flying to 5 AGL does not help when you need to land. Afternoon is worse than morning for turbulence, and most areas are prone to afternoon Tstorms. That is true at ABQ and all up and down the Rockies, or anywhere (such as KRAP) where there is orographic lifting potential. Doesn’t your aircraft POH have tables for landing and takeoff? If tables did not come from Rocket, then it must be the case that the STC provides to use the 231 tables. I am sure that tables are a required part of certification.

Uh, yeah. I was 59. Last night I was at a gathering of the Minnesota Wing of Angel Flight Central and got to sit and talk with our all time record holder, Gordon Lewis, who flew 384 missions for AFC before retiring from flying. He got his license at 65. The other fella at the table got his license at 60 and has over 100 missions. Ain’t ever too late. PS I should have finished the thought. Between the three of us old farts who learned late in life, we have flown 587 missions for AFC and counting, plus many for other organizations. We have each been recognized as Pilot of the Year for AFC and have one national award coming up. We are very proud to fly with all of the other pilots of Angel Flight Central, we try our best to set a good example.

Yeah, we hit a cloud of bugs at 12K over Raton NM a few years ago.

Ditto.

Many things we are taught during PPL about operating an engine apply to NA engines only, which is what the great majority of school planes have. For example, we may have been taught to lean in the climb, which works in an NA to keep the mixture from going overly rich because the ambient pressure is decreasing. The turbo wants to be full rich when at full power in a climb to keep the engine cool and the input pressure can be held to a full power pressure like 36-38” all the way to critical altitude; no reason at all to lean in a climb. The “full rich for landing” is another. During the descent on final the engine will not quit when too rich or too lean because the movement of the aircraft is helping the prop. But during the rollout when the help stops and the engine is on its own, either too rich or too lean will cause the engine to stop. The “make the engine full rich for landing” lesson we are taught is another OWT better left to school plane operation. There is no great trick to pushing two knobs in for a go around instead of just one. Haven’t heard of a pilot crashing because he/she had to push in two knobs. The turbo engines need to be set rich to keep the engine cool. It does seem to be tricky to perfectly balance the idle setting and the full power setting. Paul K. can explain it better than me. But the pilot has full control over this problem. I operate LOP quite a bit. But whether I was cruising at LOP or ROP I make my final approach at a lean setting. There is a “perfect” point for this, which is idle rise. On the ground, with the engine at idle, if you pull the mixture slowly out, the RPMs will rise about 75 until they start to fall again. Remember approximately how far out the stick was and use that for your landing setting. I personally go even further, I will make my final approach at a much leaner setting and just put in some mixture immediately before or after touchdown. It is not hard to do. Changing plugs will help whether you are making your approach lean or rich, if the new plugs are generating a stronger spark. The whole point of a LOP or a ROP setting is that the mixture is harder to ignite, resulting in a slower flame front during the combustion cycle. Make the spark better and the mixture will ignite more readily. That said, if you are burbling during landing or rollout you are operating the engine too rich, which eventually is going to gunk up the plugs. Just find a better setting, which is one that is leaned out somewhat. Not to say there are not some more exotic engine issues that could cause a stoppage on rollout. But the most common one is just that the pilot was taught to operate a school plane in a particular way, and now is driving a different engine entirely. I wish when I first started flying my Mooney that there had been someone around to tell me these things. One dark night some 13 years ago I was flying pattern practice. This was when the landing lights were still incandescent and drew a ton of current, more than the 231 alternator makes at idle, and before I had a good engine monitor that would tell me how bad the electrical situation was. I came in for a landing, taxied toward the little operations building my FBO had back then, and the engine stopped dead right in front of it. No battery left to restart. All the instructors came out and helped me push my “new” plane in. They had a lot of fun with that! Now we have Mooneyspace.

I fly in the rural Midwest for Angel Flight quite a bit. So yes, around the MSP Bravo you will generally always get missed instructions that are not the published missed because they are routing you away from MSP. However, in rural areas ATC pretty much leaves you to your own devices in flying approaches in IMC. They will give you the published approach which includes the published missed. I also like GPS type approaches because they are a little easier to set up on the panel, although with a 750 Xi an ILS is pretty simple. You don’t even have to fiddle with getting the Morse code for the ILS, the 750 automatically IDs it. My point really is that I don’t understand why the FAA seems to feel the need to set up these long Ts at the beginning of an RNAV, and long missed approach segments. It wasn’t that way at the start, when GPS approaches first came out. For example, that RNAV 31 at KGYL used to have a missed approach segment where you climbed straight ahead to 3000 and then did a right turn to a missed hold point, don’t remember the name, but it was right near the airport. At some point the policy decision appears to have been made to opt for long straight out missed segments and long inbound T segments. Don’t know why. Takes a lot of time to fly them. The FAA did not mess with the ILS approaches so they are all quite a bit shorter.

Sure, they are the norm here, although to get to the 15-20 mile distance you may have to include the outbound leg of the missed hold. See e.g. the RNAV 31 at KGYL(11 miles to the missed hold plus 4 for the outbound leg), the RNAV 33 at KHCD (12 to the missed hold plus 4 for the outbound leg), or just about any of our rural RNAVs in MN. You can just skip around to any of the other rural airports in southern MN if you want to verify. Sure if you happen to be coming from the right side of the airport you may be able to fly in from a more convenient IAF but can’t count on that. Our ILSs in MN generally use a nearby VOR for the missed hold, which is either right on the airport (see e.g. the ILS 13 at Willmar (where Oasis Aero is located)) or close by (ILS 30 at KLVN). I fly quite a bit of practice approaches, both VFR and IFR. The RNAVs are all long compared to the ILSs. Long ride through the initial approach segment and long ride out to the missed.

First, I prefer ILS approaches to RNAVs. ATC is much more comfortable giving vectors to final with an ILS and ILS approaches are generally inherently shorter approaches to fly anyway. RNAVs are fine and work well with GPS based nav systems, but man, you have to fly 15 or 20 miles past your intended airport in order to get on some RNAVs and then fly another 15 or 20 miles to get to the missed hold. Second, I want options. I have had the GPS decide, during an LPV, that it does not have enough satellites and the approach has to convert to something else or be abandoned entirely and then what? Or for whatever reason a Glideslope comes in on one receiver and not the other. I have two separate systems. System one drives the AP and is a 750 Xi with the signal going through an ICARUS Sam GPSS and then two 275's (AI and HSI) that are primary instruments. The second is a 430AW separately connected to its own CDI. Not a big fan of the "integrated system red X" that does actually happen. It is not common that one system cooperates and the other does not, but have had it happen on one or two occasions. Even once, when you are trying to get down with Tstorm activity advancing is enough to justify separate systems in my view. I also had a DME installed. Cheap insurance. And I have a primary AI (275) and a backup AI that is a different technology and separate from the primary.

Normally, if flying an approach to landing in actual, I let the autopilot take the aircraft down to minimums or field visibility, whichever comes first. I would not change control in the middle of an approach, not in actual. When training in VFR or under the hood I will change control and will hand fly approaches just to train for the possibility that the AP does something kinky someday in actual. I have had things like that happen but usually not the AP, in one or two instances I have had to switch to flying an LOC rather than an ILS because for whatever reasons the AP failed to couple, or something similar with an RNAV type approach, maybe the GPS won’t allow an LPV. But that is training. I prefer not to change control in IMC in order to keep things stable and keep me focused.

And are being flown in the ancient ways by ancient pilots, present company accepted.