Jeff_S

This thread has sat idle for 9 months so I thought I'd reactivate it to see if there are any other experiences out there people want to share. I'm still getting used to the whole fuel-injected "cold start vs hot start" technique and as summer approaches and I expect to fly more multi-leg trips, the hot or warm-start technique will be important. So far, I'm just following POH instructions on hot start, which is mixture at cut-off, throttle in just until the "click" of the gear warning horn activater, crank her up. This has worked 8 out of 8 times, but it does seem to crank for about 10-15 seconds before catching. I may experiment with the technique described above, giving 1 second of boost for each 30 minutes of rest. And yes, a SkyTech starter is on the list for eventual improvements but all things in time!

That's some nice stuff there Parker. I'll be curious to follow your experience and how long it takes you to get comfortable with the G500. It's on my short list as well for the next time I feel like spending some big dough. I think given the equipment I already have in the plane (GDL69A, GNS480, MX-20, etc) it makes more sense to go with Garmin than an Aspen. I've heard they are offering rebates to get people to lose the old MX-20s but I'm getting used to it and it works okay. We shall see.

My A/P never charges me extra for parts that I source myself. I think that is pretty much highway robbery. On the other hand, if his hourly rates are so dramatically low that he honestly tries to make up for that with a little markup on parts, then perhaps its a workable relationship. But other than that, I think it's a bit outrageous. (But at least he's honest with you that he wants to charge that, instead of just jacking up the rates for something else.)

So I've heard and read from many Mooney owners that turf or other unconditioned strips can lead to premature fuel tank leakage as it stresses those seals. Bryan, have you experienced this with all your off-tarmac exploits?

I had seen this one and rejected it for several reasons, not the least of which is that my personal preference was for a later model as I like the rounded-corner windows. That's purely an aesthetic thing but it's what I wanted. But beyond that, I would agree that the price seemed high for the value of the components available. I didn't even examine far enough to realize it had fuel bladders.

Looks like you hit an inflection point in the middle of last year and growth has continued since then. That's pretty typical for a quality web-based community, and I would think given the closed nature of the Mooney clan it should continue to grow for awhile before leveling off once it reaches a saturation point where all those who are likely to join have done so. (There I go again, talking like a marketing dude.) I'll just say that I found this site at the beginning of my Mooney search and it's been an invaluable help in finding the right plane, but also now learning to get the most out of it. My thanks as well!

Yeah Earl, I had a single-purpose mission today to test out this LOP stuff, so I just headed northeast out of PDK toward Habersham for testing at 5500', then back home. I was playing hookey from work so I didn't stay out long. I did practice a touch of airwork just to see how much adverse aileron yaw the Mooney gives compared to my old Warrior. It turns out, not as much, although some Dutch rolls are always a good way to practice "yoke and rudder" technique.

Bruce, have you had any success with this? I am also having a mystery battery draw that just seems to sap the battery faster than one would otherwise expect. Today I went out after only about 10 days off and as soon as I turned on the Master I got the low-battery alarm which I think is coming from the JPI. And the starter cranked very poorly, although it did ultimately start the engine. This all started not long after I got the plane, when after a two week lay-off the battery was totally dead. It was a three year old battery so it was reasonable to suspect that it had just lost its mojo. But now I'm seeing similar behavior (although not totally dead) with the new one. Also, when we put the new one in I started getting a weird pulsing ammeter which subsequently disappeared all on its own after the A/P futzed around just checking all the connections. It clearly seems like there's a bad ground issue somewhere, but we've cleaned off the Master switch and don't know where else to look (maybe the master relay next to the battery?). The prior owner had a Battery Minder attached, and even though I'm just on a ramp I've left those connections hooked up. Could that be causing some type of draw even though it's just the cables that go out to the baggage area and aren't attached to anything?

Well, I haven't paid the $395 but I feel like I've gotten a good chunk of that info here and at AvWeb, and the results bore fruit today. Just went out for a test hop with my "red box avoidance" chart pulled from AvWeb (attached) and a refresher on how to use LOP ops on my JPI-700. I got up to 5500 and went to work. First, tested my GAMI spread using the LOP feature: 0.2. Sweet! No need for GAMI injectors. Next, used the chart to lean down to -20 LOP and just let 'er stabilize at WOT and 2450 RPM. She settled in at 155 KTAS and about 9.5 gph. And the CHTs stayed all below 350, some down around 320. Even the old analog CHT and Oil Temp gauges got lower than I've seen them for awhile. This stuff really works! Many thanks to all for bringing me along for the ride with all the info.

Quote: 16LPilot Abandon ye all hope... Thought I had just found my plane, but was outbid by someone with more money than sense at the last minute...

Way to go Dave. It seems like aircraft sales activity is starting to pick back up. As a relatively new member to the Mooney club I can only say I hope you enjoy yours as much as I'm starting to enjoy mine.

My wife bought a Clarity Aloft because she also had a problem with the clamping pressure of a traditional headset. Plus, of course, it gave her "headset hair." (And lest you think I'm making a girl joke, she really did complain about this!) She hasn't flown that often, but she does seem to enjoy the CA headset and likes the lightness and general sound quality.

Interesting, although I would bet most folks would actually use the power adapter and plug the 696 into the cig lighter since it only lasts a couple hours on battery. That would of course solve the problem.

So, I think I know the answer to this but I haven't found it specifically written in all the literature I've read lately. Assuming my GAMI spread is acceptable (which I now know how to test) I should be able to run LOP because I have the engine monitor to do it. I even know how to run the LF LOP operation on the JPI-700. My question is, if I'm following the "red zone avoidance" technique as graphed by the APS folks, which cylinder do I use as the guide to set the LOP mixture? I'm assuming I would use the last cylinder to have peaked, because it will be the hottest and the one I need to bring down to the appropriate temp. But if that's wrong, please set me straight. (Similarly, if running ROP, I would use the first cylinder to have peaked as the baseline as it would also be the hottest. Right?)

So, I have this handy iPhone app which helps determine power and fuel flow settings to achieve a desired HP at a given altitude and temperature, designed specifically for our IO-360 Axxx engines (in fact, derived from the actual engine operation manual charts). I plug in 8000 feet, std temp (-1C), and then have the option of using Economy or Power settings. For the sake of consistency I'll keep it at 2500 RPM although you can even dial that around too if you want. Here's what it says: 65% power, Best Power, 2500 RPM, 20" MP, 11.0 GPH 65% power, Economy, 2500 RPM, 20.8", 9.2 GPH While purely theoretical and taken from the ops manual, this would seem to jive with Scott's experience for the most part. It supports a higher MP reading while leaned out to maintain the same power, and being able to accomplish this with lower fuel flow. This discussion has been helpful to me as I come up to speed (or LOP speed, anyway!) on this new bird of mine.

So the lecture about not operating at LOP: was he promoting LOP or was he steering you away from it since you don't have GAMI injectors? I think it's funny how the LOP/ROP debate rages across all aviation groups. We go through this in the Piper forum about once a year as well.

Ken, you've said this about 50° ROP in other places, but never really explained why you have this opinion. From all my study (and believe me, I've studied) I think you say this because it is the realm where CHTs are hottest and most likely to cause heat-related problems. It also is burning more gas than LOP but without the cooling effect of running 100° ROP. So to summarize, you're burning more gas (= more $$) but not getting the benefit of more cooling, and yet you're not at full power so you're also not getting the benefit of greater speed. You're kind of getting the worst of both worlds. Is my interpretation of your belief correct?

Now, I have to admit, this is one of the most imaginative places to file a "bug report" I have ever heard. I had to wonder whether or not the Original Poster got his dates mixed up and thought yesterday was April 1. Then I realized he was serious. Too bad...wasted an awesome opportunity for a joke!

Well, I now have my J model and I can tell you that it slips just fine for wind correction on final. I've always preferred a forward slip to the crab/kick-out method because that way I know for sure whether or not I've got enough rudder control to keep going straight. Granted, the winds at the surface are not always the same as at 100 or 200 feet, but if anything they're usually less strong so it gives me good assurance. As I said in my original post, what I was most interested in was the dramatic slip to slow down and lose altitude on a short final. So in my dual training we practiced some emergency power-off descents and I learned all about how to use the flaps landing gear and prop pitch to help bring her down, including a slip if necessary. The J has a few more tools to help lose speed/altitude than my Warrior did, although it is by nature more slippery so they're needed. And mine does not have speed brakes. So I wouldn't say I'm fully proficient at the quick short approach by a long shot, but I've got the foundation to keep practicing.

Quote: mooney205kd Nice lookin' bird ya got there, Jeff!

Is there is a big incidence of Mooneys getting hijacked?

Yes, I assume they were overhauled because they came with yellow tags which are in the log books. The engine core is at 940 hours SMOH so I figure with the proper care I've got 1000 hours on this set-up, and as we get closer to TBO I'll be able to decide my next step. The IO-390 has me drooling a bit, but I'm many years away from that decision (hopefully). I will be at the PDK fly-in tomorrow although I may not "fly in" per se. I caught a bad head cold this week so unless it clears up considerably I won't want to risk my ears on the pressure changes. I may just taxi over and join the crowd...although I hate to start up an engine for such a short cycle so perhaps I'll just drive over to Atlantic and walk in. One way or the other, I'll be there.

I don't have a wealth of experience on this but I'll tell you the story I have so far. The prior owner had the ECi chrome cylinders on the J but was having trouble with oil consumption (no compression loss, just using a lot of oil) which he attributed to not flying it that much. So at annual last July he put on the Cerminil cylinders and broke them in (which only takes about 5 hours). I had an oil change done as part of the pre-buy in early January, and since then the plane has flown ~20 hours and each time I check the oil and get ready to add more, the mark stays solid at 6 quarts. So that result seems to have satisfied its objective.

This is definitely not related to the landing gear. The wires from the airswitch go directly to a Hobbs that is on the back bulkhead. I saw some log entries from many years ago about the installation of the "maintenance Hobbs meter" so I'm sure that's what it is. The plane started life as a trainer with Flight Safety so I'm sure that had something to do with it. I haven't bothered to check to see if the Hobbs is still running after an actual flight.

Hmm...one wonders what aerial activities could be accomplished with a stable autopilot and a willing partner...