kortopates

No but its possible you don't have the correct oil stick part #. If you can read part # on it you can verify.

yes its true and Lots and lots written on replacing them, use Google to search Mooneyspace for more information: site:Mooneyspace.com oxygen tank replacement Also know what size kevlar/composite tank you are replacing too

Just to be clear, Yes they are all field overhauls but not to service limits. All of the recognized engine rebuilding shops offer overhauls to NEW limits, which can be just as good if not better than a manufacturer rebuilt - also to new limits - but made with parts that can come from many different engines. A service limit overhaul is not nearly as valuable as a new limit overhaul. To muddy the waters even more, regardless of limits, OH quotes may or may not include accessories. Nor may they include running the initial break-in on a test stand before delivering it. Be sure to know what you’re being quoted. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ouch! sorry to hear that. I don’t know what model it was but it always comes down to insured hull value. Insurance won’t pay out more than about 70% of hull value for repairs since if they total it the average salvage value is about 30% of hull value that they’ll recoup. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 252/Encore option can even exceed 1100 lbs mine is just under 1140 lbs and has everything but FIKI and an awesome panel

Your estimate seems very reasonable to me but i do think you’re a bit under in the inspection process. i only have some experience helping with bringing Canadian registered into the US not the other way around. But the inspection is usually done by a FAA DAR but it’s still straight forward because Canadian rules are more stringent than US. Canada imposes hard limits on overhaul time that don’t apply to part 91 operators down here and besides additional unexpected maintenance under Canadian rules you could also run into alterations that wouldn’t be approved up there. All of this is to just emphasize the need to get a thorough log book review by the equivalent Canadian inspector before starting price negotiations on a bird to import. But i’d guesstimate 4-5K not including any big ticket surprises. Your ferry cost and likely taxes wouldn’t really depend on if the plane was being imported or not. But indeed are significant cost to plan for. But you’ll get much more value for the ferry cost if you just hire your transition instructor to bring the aircraft home with you. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely right 100% And none of my comments are meant to disparage him in any way. His job was to show off the airplanes capabilities which we all understand. I had to do the same thing when i flew for Mooney Intl demoing the Acclaim. i flew it like i would never fly my own airplane in order to show off its performance and maximize the wow effect such as using speed brakes in every descent. But New owners that flew them hard per the POH, especially ROP, invariably needed a new TOP in under 1000 hrs. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everything in Bob's write up is still very good information today except for his wisdom on engine management. We know today that operating at a mere 50F ROP at high power settings is about the worst possible way to manage your engine if you want to see longevity. His comments about leaning in climb are ill advised and I have no idea where he gets the notion that most engines fuel set up has the engine overly rich, since in actuality its just the opposite. Continentals recommended fuel settings are overly aggressive on the lean side for longevity. Just look at his CHTs for the proof - there is no need to run CHTs that high but then he also wasn't using his cowl flaps. But his numbers are all about getting optimum performance - not longevity. But other statements like climbing at full power at 120 kts to the flight levels are right on. Reducing power a bit (e.g. using cruise climb POH numbers) will actually only serve to increase temps and climb time.

Long time owner/instructor, for near 25 years, that started with a 231 and then quickly upgraded to a 252 that is now a 252/Encore. The manual pneumatic wastegate is not directly comparable to an automatic hydraulic wastegate. The Merlyn is still 100% manual, What it really offers is a much higher critical altitude (~22K msl) over the fixed bolt wastegate (~15K) (which is very important to flying above the mid teens) but it doesn't improve or help with engine management in any way. That takes a hydraulic wastegate which makes flying the turbo essentially as easy as a flying a normally aspirated J model; except for temperature management since things happen very quickly in a turbo. If you compare the cruise performance tables between 231 and 252 you'll see that the 252 has essentially 10kt faster cruise speed at max cruise power. Due to airframe drag reductions including the electric cowl flaps which are infinitely adjustable which means a much less speed penalty for flying with partially opened cowl flaps. When it comes to useful load the 231 has no upgradability unlike the gross weight increase available to every 252 with the Encore upgrade. The 252 isn't really heavier it just comes with all the Mooney options as standard including heated prop, speed brakes, oxygen system, standby electric vacuum (less important in todays world) bucket seats that fold down in the rear (started in '84 or '85), and generally superior avionics and AP (if not already upgraded). But most important is the advantage of the higher output 28V electrical system (double the current output) and very popular option for dual alternators - which was a critical reason for why I upgraded to the 252 since no longer susceptible to an alternator failure. (I once flew back from Central America with a single alternator that I would otherwise have been stranded till repairing it). Then of course doing the Encore upgrade increases your max gross weight by 230 lbs and almost all of that increases your useful load. My useful load is just shy of 1140 lbs! Probably the highest in the fleet but its been something I've been working on improving for over 2 decades. Don't make the same mistake I made initially which was not realizing the acquisition cost was a drop in the bucket compared to the recurring annual operating cost. i.e. the cost to operate any of the K's will be the same and in a short time will over shadow your acquisition cost. Therefore it makes the most sense to get the best and most complete example you can afford to begin with. If you can't get a 252 or Encore then my advice would be to look for a "262" which a 231 converted to the 252 -MB engine. (The STC is no longer available). Its still much less expensive than a 252 and is limited to a 12V electrical system but otherwise has the -MB engine with hydraulic wastegate with larger Garrett Turbocharger and tuned induction system and several other improvements. The MB engines makes them the cream of the crop of 231's. Some of them even have the electric cowl flaps too which is a big plus for their adjustability and lower drag. But avoid an early 231 that still has the -GB engine versus the -LB - for one they don't have pressurized magnetos. But there are only a few around.

It’ll be a cable housing issue not a lubrication one. The cables become brittle, crack and fall apart. Housing material won’t be hard to source but getting it with the bulkhead fittings is the challenge. i got my replacements years ago from Precise. I’d look on McMaster-carr site. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never advocate going full rich for landing unless it’s a sea level airport or near that. Even with the turbo it’s easy to be overly rich at idle depending on DA with full rich. But it’s really bad form to land LOP IMO opinion. You want the engine ready to go to high power without any stumbling. If and when you do go to full power, besides gradually advancing throttle, just be sure to remember mixture and prop are also need to be full. (One can get away with jamming in the throttle on a 4 cyl engine but it’s very poor form and harmful to a large 6 cyl engine. ) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was annunciating alarms for exceeding redlines for MAP as soon as the throttle was pushed in and within seconds for exceeding CHT redlines for every cylinder. This is good lesson to us all about the need to scan our engine instruments during the takeoff sequence. With any engine i teach checking oil pressure as soon as you go full power and then with Turbo’s to monitor TIT and abort if it goes over 1450 before taking off. In cruise using Normalize mode will immediately show EGT and or CHT excursions before alarm limits are exceeded. But the monitor needs to be in your scan. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not from the pilot. But this was a very short flight. From start up to takeoff was under 4 minutes. At 5 1/2 minutes it was over. The oil didn’t even get warmed up. The silver lining in quickness to failure was that it was fast enough to prevent anyone from getting hurt. But seeing an engine blow up in 5 1/2 minutes is a new record for me. I really sympathize for the owner. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve tried them all through students and really don’t like looking through lenses that get dirty and scratched. The Viban work the best IMO and work really well with or without glasses. When not using, just push up and headset keeps them up. https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pnpages/13-02023.php?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiA0fu5BhDQARIsAMXUBOJni6s85XnQ32bRyOXGkh6OxDpp-We5KD-47ov6YwrAZurwArAHj_kaAgBaEALw_wcB Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not with absolute certainty. But there are only a couple possibilities. And for sure, cold oil contributed to or exasperated the situation. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thanks - hopefully fixed now Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With literally thousands of hours of flying right seat i’d say it’s an acquired skill that takes quite a bit of time and needs to be constantly practiced to be doable in weather. Personally i don’t think someone that hasn’t practiced it before they do it in IMC is going to fair well; especially if they weren’t proficient on the full panel to begin with. I agree with the sentiment it’s a terrible configuration to place backups were they did. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought I'd show an example of an engine anomaly that pilots need to be prepared to take swift action to save their engine cylinder(s). Many pilots have a very nice engine monitor installed but its mere presence doesn't do anything to keep you safe., That's up to the pilot to keep the monitor in their scan and learn as much as they can about how to use them. I know many here have saved themselves multiple times from impending catastrophic damage because they were using their engine monitors as intended. For those learning I offer an an example of severe classic Detonation. The pilot became a Reno Racer with 25" of over boost over redline. Would you have caught this? It only took a little more than minute to cause the catastrophic damage below. CHT6 got as high as 719F the cylinder was over redline for about 90 sec and every cylinder exceeded redline. Redline MAP and RPM are almost identical to a intercooled 231 or 252/Encore. First the data: What happens is the overboost creates a very lean condition because the fuel system can't meet the demand of the added boost/air. So we see TIT go over 1700 and then the detonating cylinder EGT go up over 1800F causing its CHT go to 719F before the engine quite entirely - seizing. From the picture you can see the molten aluminum remains of a piston.

Hi Chris, thanks and me too! I understood your caveat, my contention is that if one gets comfortable using them on approaches it becomes too easy to forget when in subfreezing temps and deploy them and then see them stick open even without being in icing but just subfreezing conditions. Sometimes i’ve thought i should just pull the breaker to ensure not accidentally deploying them. Agreed though if you’re disciplined enough not too then it shouldn’t be a concern, but for those that get into the habit of using them it’s very easy to deploy them when they shouldn’t be. Paul Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll disagree since if you fly in weather, and you get comfortable using them on approaches then it will be too easy to forget and deploy them in subfreezing temps by accident and then won't be able to get them to retract or even worse only one side retracts. personally IMHO its really poor form to use them on approaches and in landings, in the same vein some pilots only want to use partial flap on landing to avoid properly trimming and airspeed control; i.e. a crutch. Ordinarily I am all about using every available tool but speed brakes can be hazardous in subfreezing temps. My personal goal in speed brakes usage is to limit my use to ATC mistakes rather than my own in order to realize maximum efficiency in my descents - so I'll take a PD descent at 2-300' FPM at cruise power every time I can get.

You don't know how good you have it their at WVI! After years in the planning, our county just started selling Swift 94UL at one of our local airports through one of the fuel providers for the sum of $10 gal. Can’t wait to see real G100UL to make it down hear at competitive prices which should be more inline with what its selling for by you.

Probably the vast majority of winterization mods for the oil cooler are fabricated in the field by just covering over the part of the oil cooler with some aluminum after first experimenting with some aluminum tape. But with only the 1 factory CHT probe I wouldn't want to touch that at all. You need proper instrumentation before doing that so I suggest holding off till you get an engine monitor. Given these piston engines are always trying to kill us, I would have done that yesterday!

agreed it merely looks like blade scrape from excessive shaft free play. One should try wiggling the shaft of the compressor, as i bet you'll see it that's why its contacting the side wall. Its a common way they can wear out.

Well i never used Garmin data. Garmin was pretty late to provide GNS data. It was all Jepp for a long time. I had migrated to the GTN before garmin offered GNS data. Even as a GTN user i still use Jepp data. Unfortunately Jepp hasn’t had the best reputation for supporting Mac users either although all my experience is with PC interfaces. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The GNS was major step in capability when it came out in ‘98 and pretty much replaced the only real competition it had from the older BK 89/90/94 gps’s. it only really competition was the Apollo CNX-80 that was the first WAAS ifr gps. but it wasn’t long till Garmin provided the GNS upgrade to WAAS for $1500 which most folks took advantage of. The GNS or Apollo paired with a MX-20 providing satellite weather was state of the art for several years till we had other newer options. But yes a non-waas gns with lnav only approaches is very limited by todays standards for many reasons including flight planning, raim checks, and limited rnav approach capabilities. Whereas a GNS waas units paired with a Flightstream is essentially far more capable despite also no longer supported and somewhat on borrowed time because of it. All my personal opinion of course. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk