Earl

Just curious, when you say no temps on the EDM does that mean you just didn't see it on the bars because it was too cool or it was essentially zero on the digital readout? And was is it both the CHT and EGT that were low? If it was totally dead it may be a stuck valve or bad cylinder. A compression check would detect that issue. If it was a bad plug it would run rough and not make full power but you would see high EGT temps since the excess fuel would not be burned in the cylinder. If it was a plugged injector it seems like you would have seen some temperature on the EDM for that cylinder but maybe not enough to show up on the bars. I think the real question is whether the cylinder was completely dead or just providing partial power. If it was completely dead it has to be a valve or the cylinder itself. If the other troubleshooting with the injectors and plugs doesn't work I would have the cylinder borescoped. As for it being fuel contamination, it seems to me that would affect the entire engine and not one cylinder unless it was some debris that got into the injector lines. My fear would be a bad cylinder or valve but try to others first to be sure. And this goes without saying but I'll say it anyway, don't fly it until you are 100% sure they found the problem. I am looking at an A36 that had a similar problem, the guy landed due to engine roughness and lack of full power, ran it on the ground, all seemed fine and then he took off and the engine quit and he had to make a forced landing.

I had always crabbed and then transitioned into a slip at touchdown. However, when I transitioned to my Mooney the CFI suggested I use the slip technique and that has been my SOP. My home base is oriented 09/27 and when the winds are blowing it is always out of the NW so I get lots of practice. I will say that when I am low on fuel and am slipping I have seen the low fuel warning light come on and I have returned to a crab. Either works for me but I have gotten used to slipping and find the transition to landing less complicated and smooth. And dittos to the response that mentioned you have to continue to fly the plane after landing, especially the Mooney. I have been a little lazy a couple of times and found myself fighting to keep close to the centerline.

Zane. I think the problem with those of us that have taken the course and posting useful information is that there is too much to post, many of which are graphs from tests they conducted, etc. What I can tell you from the data they developed is that if you are running a big block Continental at 65% power and 50 degF ROP using EGT you are at the highest ICP. I am 100% convinced of that unless the AP guys somehow rigged their test (they run the engine and show you the gauges live). You ask a good question about whether this also applies to small block Continentals and I plan to ask the guys at AP. As I said in my reply to your post if you are getting to TBO without having to replace cylinders running your engine the way you do that is all the data you need.

I don't.

Zane: Lot to think about there. I've taken the advanced pilot course and the data was pretty convincing that running 50degF ROP is where the highest ICP occurs. The way you run your engine was exactly how I did until I took the online course. Since I didn't attend the course in Ada I could not ask questions but I am going to ping George or Walter about the differences in engines as they did not indicate that the results would differ vis-a-vis an IO-550 vs a IO-360 with turbo but maybe there is. As for the issue of running at 100degF ROP I agree it is a fuel waste compared to running at 11.5 gph at similar speeds and the real question is exactly what does running the engine at the highest ICP do to you in terms of needing a top overhaul before TBO and ultimately TBO. I suspect that is very dependent on the airplane, how often it is flown, etc. and could not be quantified. However if you are running the engine that way and reaching TBO without a top overhaul or having to replace cylinders that to me is the only data point you should need. I too like speed but when you compare losing 3-5kts while saving 2 gph it seems like a good trade off to me. Saves me 5 gallons of $6/gal gas on a 500 nm trip and only adds 6 minutes to the trip (assuming my math is right). Anyway, I really appreciate your perspective on this and the feedback.

Zane: Do you happen to know where you are vis-a-vis ROP at these setting? My recollection from my 252 is those settings would put me at around 50 degF ROP which results in the highest internal cylinder pressure (ICP) even if CHTs are reasonable. As I understand from the Advanced Pilot course that is the worst place to run your engine. As I indicated above to the OP, I now run at 60% power so there is no red box or if I run above there I use my EDM-730 to lean to 100 degF ROP. Gives me CHTs on my hottest cylinder (always #6) of around 345-365 degF.

I too would love to run LOP with my 86 252 but with no luck. It just runs too rough. I have an EDM-730 and sent a spread test to GAMI and they responded that my spread was decent but could be helped by their injectors but have not pulled the trigger as yet. I usually run at 60% power so I can stay out of the red box and lean to the edge of roughness. Only gives up 3-5 kts in airspeed at around 9.5gph which works well for me. CHTs on my hottest cylinder is usually around 340-365 degF depending on OAT and cowl flap setting. TIT's at that setting are usually around 1550 degF. But if I run above 60% I always lean to 100 degF ROP which at 65% is around 13.5gph. So the answer may be GAMI injectors but if the engine runs rough at LOP I would not do it. And I consider rough running as any shaking above what you would get running ROP but maybe that is too cautious. I just don't think running an engine where the cylinders are not firing at the same time is not a great idea and definitely not very comfortable. Have you taken the Advanced Pilot course yet? If not, I highly recommend it although it sounds like you already understand the value of LOP operation.

Try LASAR. They've been able to find any part I am looking for.

150K Hull, $1M liability for $1,450 per year on an 86 252. I now have close to 700 hours with 400 in the Mooney. When I first bought the airplane I had a little over 200 hours and my premium was around $4,500 but it dropped quickly with an instrument rating and more time in type. Seems stuck around what I am currently paying.

Last flight it popped off so I got my trusty allen wrench and promptly broke it putting it back on. Luckily I was able to take the one from the air knob above my head until I can get replacements from LASAR. In case you are wondering they cost $6.50 each. Bought an extra cause trouble comes in twos, right? Or is it threes? I am pretty sure it should not look like this. Sigh...

My wife and kids regularly go to sleep regardless of altitude. I thinks its the background noise that does the trick and I feel very certain that if the screw stops turning they will be alert and looking around. I do remember once taking a friend's son on a flight to drop my daughter off in Florida so she could join a friend's family for a beach vacation. It was his first trip in a small plane and he was totally excited about the trip. Half way back I look over and he is power drooling. I took a picture and continue to give him a hard time about his "exciting" first flight in a small airplane.

The bigger issue is a change from your usual observations and absent some change/maintenance, etc. I think you need to keep looking. Issues like this drive me crazy and I have had one ever since I put in an EDM-730. I only show 33.5" of MP at full takeoff power on my gauge and have had everything possible checked with no joy. The plane runs fine, compressions are fine, turbo is fine, no leaks identified, performance seems unchanged and yet this issue is there and really bugging me. If I had a cylinder that showed a jump in CHT I would keep looking until I figured it out.

Not much to add to the already good advice except to say that my cardinal rule with regard to t-storms is if you can't see them you should be on the ground. Even though I have XM and a Stormscope and combined with assistance from ATC I will not fool with t-storms unless I am in visual conditions. Embedded t-storms cannot be reliably avoided with these tools in IMC unless you are talking isolated and are able to give them a wide berth, which in my opinion is 30nm or more. In VMC its very easy. In six years of IFR flying in the SE I have had very few flights cancelled because of t-storms and the ones that were no go's were usually because I could not fly in the morning.

If that doesn't work out try Dave Theisen. He works out of PDK and RYY but could probably run down to Villa Rica. He is also a CFII and is very familiar with Mooneys. He can be reached at 404-483-5470.

Did they check the lubrication of the trim system? I had a similar issue with my 252 shortly after I bought it and it was binding because the system needed to be lubricated. Basically it would intermittently bind enough to overcome the servos. Since its intermittent that may not be the issue but I thought I would ask. I second calling LASAR. They had some serviceable parts for my plane that were much cheaper than the other alternatives.

Never been in a Mustang but I flew around Texas with a guy in an AT-6 and it was a handful to fly. Lots of fun and every airport we visited was like an airshow with people coming out to look.

I would never penetrate a buildup at 18K feet for all the reasons stated above by others. Likewise I have never had ATC deny a request for deviation and I fly in the southeast US so I get plenty of opportunities to deviate. As for the last question I have an easy answer. I don't fly at night, VFR or IFR. Just a personal risk management decision on my part and it has never been a problem for me in my business or pleasure travel.

I'm sorry but when did I say that it wasn't critical? I take see and avoid very seriously as I am sure you do. I explained how I review the emergency procedures and if you think that's not sufficiently careful then don't follow what I do. When do you review emergency procedures? I learned that method from a CFII and it seemed to make sense to me and it's not very distracting from the more important tasks. And I did intend to say it is your day and not use the word isn't. It's your day to have your last flight, it's your day to meet your maker, etc. Also works the other way but the result is the same. And you be careful too and let's hope the first time you've read an emergency procedure in the last little while is not during an actual emergency. Now that is a bad time to be distracted from the task at hand.

Sigh.....I don't read the emergency procedures uninterrupted. I will scan a few lines, look outside if in VMC, look at the gauges, then review a few more lines......look around, look at gauges, etc. All in it probably takes no more than a total of 10 minutes to review a couple of emergency procedures. I defy you to find one pilot that can claim in a cross country flight that they aren't looking at something inside the airplane for a portion of that time. And no, I don't spend a lot of time doing see and avoid when I am in IMC. That is clearly a waste of time unless you have a burning desire to see the fine print on the side of an airplane right before you collide with it........not that interesting to me personally and if you happen to run into someone in IMC it is just your day and theirs.

What I learned from my CFII during instrument training was his SOP while he was a freight pilot. Get to altitude and established on cruise, then go to the POH and review one or two emergency procedures, then set up his number 2 radio for his destination and then cruise along. I picked up that habit so I usually do a review of a couple of emergency procedures during cruise. Fly often enough and you will have gone through each many, many times before you will need them.......hopefully.

Well this is timely. I was in Jackson, MS yesterday visiting our local office and one of the senior guys in the office came rushing over to me to tell me I was crazy for flying my Mooney. He had just read the article and was adamant that I read it. I told him I considered the USA Today to be more of a cartoon than a source of news and that other than the sports section I wouldn't use it in the bottom of a bird cage lest the bird became so stupid that it would starve to death. But I took it and scanned it and recognized it for the abysmal journalism that it was. It is hard for me to believe that this got past an editor that had half a brain........but then I remembered we are talking the USA Today. The main problem with this article is the compression of all these issues to make them seemingly immediate. Comparing the total deaths over 50 years to more contemporary numbers for airlines, etc. was misleading and a blatant case of sensationalism. As I told my employee, flying is all about risk management but at the end of the day any human endeavor entails a certain amount of risk. But the impression left by the article was totally misleading. USA Today is a disgrace which is why I never even pick them up at hotels. And when they put one outside my door I kick it aside.

The question reminds me of one of ESPN's funnier commercials with Len Berman teaching a class of aspiring sports journalists. One raises his hand and says, "I have a stupid question". Len Berman says, "There is no such thing as a stupid question.....just stupid people asking questions......now what's your question?" Guy lowers his hand slowly and says, "Never mind..." However, in this case even Len Berman would not call that a stupid question........

No problem and as I said, you can't go wrong either way except if you try to do patches like I did. With the older tanks its like playing whack a mole. Just when you get one leak repaired another pops up. I can't tell you how happy it makes me to get into my Mooney and not smell fuel fumes and see that the fuel I added is still there. Those fuel savings alone will pay for the reseal in about 20 years.

Mike: Both firms have a very good reputation and charge the same for the reseal project. What swung me toward Weep No More was the fact that every review of them was overwhelmingly positive and they had an opening that matched my spring break schedule so it was also a timing issue. I really don't think you can go wrong either way.

I guess my main point was that it is only one shop and as another poster already demonstrated it is not really a significant cost to add Camguard. But if there are concerns about the product by consumers I suspect Mattituck will see that in lost overhauls. Given the lack of confidence in the product or a lack of perceived value it seems to me a very reasonable decision to have the overhaul done at a shop that does not require the additive. I suppose the market will dictate whether this requirement by Mattituck has legs or not.