kortopates

If you actually pulled the starter off you can also verify it’s the adapter by trying to turn the adapter gear with a heavy duty screwdriver counter clockwise. When bad you’ll be able to turn it with little resistance but when good you’ll only be able go a little bit as it winds tight and then it will unwind back on you. But you don’t have to do this. Some lightweight starters are known for ruining the adapter including Iskra starter. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re describing a bad starter adapter. When you can hear the starter buzzing but prop doesn’t move or moves just a bit and stops then it’s the adapter. if you don’t hear the starter and no prop movement it’s the starter or the starter relay. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, reducing MAP doesn’t equate to reducing to idle to me at all. Nor is it something i ever do till landing or practicing emergency maneuvers. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The majority of us use Camguard. Only Niagara Air parts is down on Camguard for the starter adapter. So the wear that Camguard is protecting the engine from, it’s also protecting the starter adapter from. There is some truth though to if one starts using camguard on an engine with a worn starter adapter you may see it start slipping since the camguard is making the surface more slippery. But Niagara’s suggestion is paramount to let’s maximize life of the starter adapter at the expense of the engine. yet there is no evidence that starter adapter life is shortened by camguard or any other oil additive packages. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ought Oh, same weekend as the Cheyenne PPP.

Very close!!

Not to pick on you, but your the 2nd person (IIRC) to say increase RPM when reducing RPM which reduces thrust is correct unless rather than just reduce MAP one pulls the throttle back to idle and then full prop create more drag. In summary: If the engine is producing thrust, reducing RPM reduces thrust/power, while increasing RPM increases thrust/power - see your performance tables. If the engine isn't producing thrust, increasing RPM creates more drag and is an effective brake, reducing RPM for less drag enhances glide range.

Sorry Vance, I thought I had already said that an emergency descents per the ACS where not sufficiently long enough to create an engine management concern or essentially be in that configuration with a cold engine. Especially on a 4 cyl engine. So instead I used engine out glide to an airport followed by the power off landing example because that can actually get the engine cold and can lead to go full power with a cold engine which is not great for the engine. Maybe a bit of a tangent but the ACS emergency descent in the Mooney isn't that bad as it may seem in some other fixed gear aircraft where you might pitch very steeply since we have the gear. The later Mooney POH's that go into detail on the emergency descent procedure say gear down at max gear extended speed gives about the same rate of descent at gear up with a much steeper descent angle and faster speed. So we always do them gear down (with the required 30-45 deg bank) which limits us to Vle; which is very docile in the Mooney. (And I've never done this, but the Airplane Flying Handbook says if in Turbulent conditions not to exceed Va.) So because the emergency descent in a Mooney generally doesn't get the engine very cold I instead described how I do maneuver for IX.B did because IMO the simulated engine out glide should include some engine management adjustments that don't detract from the training value. I do them all the time. Sorry for the confusion.

I like your logic on it shouldn’t be an issue with just the prop at idle. Your second point about it only happens when the aircraft gets very cold in a long descent matches with what we see - that it takes a long descent where the engine is allowed to get very slow. But never associated it shock cooling; possible but not necessarily seeing rapid cooling. But the common denominator is getting the engine very cold in a prolonged descent at high rpm. i assume even piston scuffing can occur at that point; although commonly associated with high rpm startup on a cold engine. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ring flutter is real, but just like your experiences i’ve never seen it directly damage a Lyc 4 cylinder engine. But i have with bigger engines coming down from much higher altitudes than a 4 cyl typically fly’s at. But unable to quantity the possible accelerated wear it can have on rings i do emergency simulated engine out training differently in HP Mooney’s and Bonanza’s. Starting with normal pull to idle, pitch for Vg then observe FPM, next pull the prop back and observe the acceleration and new reduced FPM, Now with several miles to go to an airport, i’ll simulate the same descent rate by putting gear down and adding just enough power to maintain the observed FPM clean and lean it out (btw, we also compare that to what our calculated FPM should be based on POH glide ratio and Vg) So now with a little power, we’re reducing the stress in terms of letting get too cold as well as reducing likelihood of ring flutter. But if we need to go back to full power, we’ll just add about 20” MAP to arrest descent and level off as go over the runway level and not add full power till we CHTs come back. Rather than go full power. Bigger engines have min temp limits before runup and full power. this is just to ensure these aren’t ignored as well as minimize the prop driving the engine. But following those minor adjustments i believe the training is well worth it. Emergency descents are never more than a few thousand feet which i don’t think is a concern till they’re prolonged to over more than 10+K and engine has time to get very cold. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Technically the only approved connectors are MS and MIL-STD connectors per our AC43.13 although there are other industry standards the FAA cites in AC's on the topic. My Mooney has a ton of CPC connectors along with a great many unapproved connectors too like the knife connectors and molex - but I think mostly Molex connectors are a Whelen thing. I am trying to think where else Molex connectors are used in the Mooney. But I also would shy away from Molex for all the reasons stated above. I personally like the Deutsch connectors as well that Scott recommends above and these are becoming popular with avionics installers. No experience with the Delphi Weather Pack but my minimum requirements would be a weather sealed/water sealed to protect it from corrosion and use of a certified crimper to ensure the crimp was at least as strong as the wire for a reliable connection and longevity. Deutsch even makes MIL connector but I just use the standard ones. Personally i think the most important opinion is your install manual (there should be guidance therein) followed by the IA that is going to sign off on your install.

Really sorry to hear that. I am too far away to help but I hope you get it back soon even with a special issuance and then promptly get a Basic Med since it can better insulate you from this in the future - although it too has flight barring conditions/restrictions. But its much easier to go by doctors opinions rather than waiting a minimum of 3 months to hear OKC agree with your doctor or worse be asked for more tests after waiting for months.

Yes and No, my goal is always to get a pilot discretion descent so that I can descend at 200-300 FPM. Nothing to do with my engine but purely for efficiency sake. But when I have to come down expeditiously I am quite happy to make a large power reduction with zero concern for shock cooling in my turbo - but I avoid pulling back to idle see next comment. No need to pull back to idle unless your making an emergency descent, a short one is okay, but whenever you reduce the engine power so much that the engine is no longer driving the prop but instead the airflow over the prop is, your reversing the stress on the piston rings in the piston groves in opposite direction they are intended for which can lead to damaging ring flutter when done over a long descent. I suggest never reducing the power below 13" till your descending for the runway. But in an emergency you do it regardless. I know a Mooney pilot on the list that did an emergency descent from about 20K that had this happen. Of course nothing to do with shock cooling concerns though.

Actually I thought Rich already answered this above quite well, but I'll try to clarify. No, you're mixing up drag from the prop at idle and thrust from the prop under power. You have the right concept under power and in fact each 100 rpm is roughly equivalent to each 1 inch of MAP which is where the Key Number concept for power comes from. So using your J as an example we teach the key number of 50 = 75% power which means any combination of MAP in inches + Prop RPM in 100's equal to 50 gets you 75% power e,g. 25" and 2500 rpm or 26" and 2400 rpm are all the same power essentially. But when the engine power is reduced to idle or less such that the wind is now turning the prop, not the engine, the prop is now creating drag not thrust. As such, the faster, higher RPM, finer pitch, the more drag it produces, which is why power off for best glide we pull the prop back to go further with Less Drag. But under power to slow down we can reduce thrust with less RPM.

And one more point that needs to be emphasized that Rich started with, just do the best you can for your comfort level and experience level. ATC will have no problem vectoring you around if you can’t make the descent rate they were wanting because of traffic. They have more tools and options than we usually do. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't need to slip it on an IFR flight; especially IMC. But you do need to be much more aggressive about getting it slowed down to come down. Reducing MAP to at least 15" is a start, and also reducing RPM as well to get you to gear speed. Lean out the mixture to bring EGTs upto the 1400's if able to reduce the amount of cooling on your CHTs. Then gear down will enable a steeper yet stabilized descent ready for any bumps (if present). You'll want to add a "Quick Descent" configuration to your IFR PAC, the one we use for F in the PPP's is from memory 13" at 2250 rpm 120 MPH leaned with gear down - this is intended more for NPA but will get you 1000 FPM or more descent.

I hope so! Very impressive! My SO will like all the interior options and new chute but I want the electric gear option so I can avoid the Mooney dip.

I land at dirt strips every winter in Mexico. Never in soft sand, although the parking area at my favorite whale watching lagoon is quite soft. But none would we characterized as beach sand. The closest is referred to crushed shell which is very sandy but not soft sand. But its easy to get stuck in the soft sandy areas. The problem with your potential beach landing is knowing just how soft it is. A recent pirep is very helpful. But with some soft field practice and technique the landing and takeoff should not be an issue unless it beach sand soft. But taxi and turning around, such as to back taxi, are the real threats! It good to pre-walk the strip if you have to turn around so you can pick a spot without rocks and that's not so soft that you are at risk of digging in. Whatever happens though, don't power up if the nose wheel digs in - shut down immediately and dig yours self out if necessary. Burning Man airport that Paul Steen visited isn't comparable to beach sand, it a Playa and the organizers do a lot of prep work each year plus the airport sees a ton of traffic. The hazards of Burning Man aren't the runway use but the winds kicking up the very corrosive playa dust that get everywhere. Not a problem with the typical dirt runway but a dust storm isn't good for any aircraft. Anyway I've never felt the need to change my oil or air filter after any of my trips. I do wipe down the dust off the landing gear and doors. Of course, Burning man would be very different! I'll assume your familiar with a rolling or moving runup so as not to damage the prop.

Some of the folks that do this work will tell you if your doesn’t need it they won’t charge you to check yet it will take at least 1/2 hour of their time. But those really good at it can always make a significant improvement which is worthwhile to the engine and airframe. And it should be easy to improve on a prop that had only been statically balanced so far (at the prop shop like a new prop) and never dynamically balanced yet. As mentioned, even if you can’t feel it your engine sure can. But odds are you’ll be able to feel it. I installed a new MT composite prop and was delighted at how smoother and quieter it ran. Then after getting it dynamically balanced i was again pleasantly surprised that it was even smoother!

Makes me think of the Porsche M20L, a lot of similarities but Porsche engine RPM was probably half what this. At least they have much more aviation experience than what Porsche did. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe possible but certified GPS has been around for 31 years now and I’ve never seen or heard of a lock up with TSO’d avionics. So although possible it’s got to be very rare. But it’s also a reason why i don’t have a non-tso’d G3X in my panel and also why my panel is fully redundancy. If i did need to reboot something i always have another tso’d unit that i can navigate by, communicate by or use for instruments. I think a bigger concern was the first generation Aspen, who’s STC allowed you eliminate all the backup instruments if you had multiple Aspens. I though this was crazy because of the nature of the single integrated chip for the ADHRS was vulnerable to loss of any input killing it entirely. All it took was an iced pitot tube to X out the entire display and it didn’t matter how many Aspens you had! Lots of videos on that issue out there. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only real repair is a new door. The new door skins are made a bit oversized to be trimmed to fit your plane. You can look at used salvage doors but the odds of one fitting your plane well isn’t good. I trust the hold open arm had to break off to allow the crease to form. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I saw a message from GP on one of my devices yesterday that they approved 18.5 so i updated both my iPhone and iPad. Till Mikes comment above i had no idea that they approve the iPad IOS version separately from the iPhone version. So the message i saw must have been on my iphone. No problem today though flying with 18.5 on my iPad, but i would have waited if i realized it was for just the iPhone. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They’re upto 18.5 now Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I totally agree, I think where I am disagreeing (perhaps) is that even though the accident totals may not show improvement with the high tech safety tools available to us now, due to a lack of proficiency and mis use of the tools, it doesn't mean a great proportion of the pilot community can't benefit from them - those will always be the ones that seek training, work on their proficiency, and learn their proper use - anyway you want to put it. Do you really see no value in these technological advancements if the population as a whole doesn't show any improvement? My choices only come down to if I can see value to my own safety and benefit.