kortopates

I certainly don't disagree with your statement nor @jaylw314 at all - most of the time LNAV min are plenty good enough. But WAAS isn't just good for just LPV minimums. So many are quick to dismiss it because they can only translate it into LPV minimums. It has huge benefits and just because those huge benefits don't directly translate into increased minimums doesn't mean they aren't easily justified or really of value to pilots. Are they required? Of course not, but they greatly simply flying approaches for all of us and probably more so for the pilot that isn't flying frequently. I'd argue that they add a tangible amount of safety with improved situational awareness and the ability to fly more approach leg types - even though I realize we have yet to ever see the accident rate decrease from leaps in technology in the cockpit. But what I am referring to is the added VNAV or +V capability and 5 hz update rate that comes with WAAS. To highlight a few benefits of WAAS beyond LPV, start with the 5 hz update rate. In a partial panel emergency we now have a more reliable box for flying partial panel using just GPS ground track information that's continuously precise even in a turn unlike the compass bobbing up and down in turbulence. Then we have the other benefits that it adds additional approach types such as LP and vertical nav brings us advisory glideslope (+V) on all GPS approaches; including LNAV & LP. With the latest GTN series we also now get support for heading leg types that we didn't have previously when flying missed approaches, ODP's and SIDs - which have Heading legs(rather than course); and even RF leg support. Do you really need this stuff to get down? No, usually not, but it sure is handy when the weather is low and everyone that flys with WAAS knows the added situational awareness is really helpful. Perhaps one of the best examples how its really helpful is the GTN support for a visual approach into every runway at every airport including with +V (when lack of obstacles permits) which is a great tool for even flying VFR into an unfamiliar airport. Like every leap in technology, to be useful, the pilot has to train to know how to use their avionics well. But when things aren't going well, the technology gives us far better tools to work with for those that have mastered it, and I personally find this just as valuable as the LPV approach capabilities. LPV approaches are only touching the surface of what WAAS brings us in a modern box but so many don't seem to understand how useful it really is beyond LPV approaches.

That sure looks like its worn well beyond the limits of 10% of the thickness of the tube which is .065" thick on a my Mooney K model, but you'll have to verify what the thickness of the tubing used by Rocket in case its different. But if the wear is say .01" now, you know there is no hope. Its not terribly expensive to repair the mount, its the labor to pull off the engine and put it back on; probably with new lord mounts that get's pricey. But avoiding this is straight forward, keeping the tubes covered with paint by cleaning up rust and exhaust leak damage at every annual and touching up with paint etc. I also use aluminum tape to protect it at the engine mounts location area where mine got the most heat damage previously.

We're actually not trying to set it so that stays on redline on takeoff since because of the rpm variation that will guarantee it exceeds redline. Instead we try to set it so that it will be very near redline without actually exceeding redline. At Savvy we don't recommend adjusting it up unless it's more than 40 rpm low, but if its exceeding redline on every takeoff by 10-20 or more, it should be turned down. Pilots naturally want the maximum performance out of their engine so they tend to fixate on wanting to see it at redline. But the bigger concern should be on not exceeding limits and longevity.

AN hardware is an example of Standard parts, but batteries are not. The TCDS specifies 4 different batteries for the E, anything that isn't PMA'd for those will require a 337. Given approved batteries are readily available I doubt your FSDO would entertain it, but you could certainly reach out to your FSDO and ask an inspector about it. Even if they'll approve, an IA (or DER) will end up needing to write up a 337 that includes an ICA and other analysis that will cost $ to get it signed off (unless you can find someone else that got a 337 for it approved to use) .

Another reason why an extension is unlikely is that the FAA already has plans for a website to allow people to request a flight exemption, one flight at a time, along the guidelines stated in 91.225. They're basically automating request for flight exemptions but warned it can't be used repeatedly and indefinitely. The FAA announcement is located here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/01/2019-06184/statement-of-policy-for-authorizations-to-operators-of-aircraft-that-are-not-equipped-with-automatic There is a thread on it here in MS :

That was meant as kudos to you for getting to the bottom of this before further flight and finding the issue. We don't always see that. Now its just a matter of time. But in my limited experience, its usually the other way around in that metal contaminants from the engine get into the governor. I thought I recall a metal screen on the gasket for the governor as well that would offer some protection - but that's just my recollection - but odds should be very much in your favor that its clean. But of course wise to verify carefully to be sure.

correct, but actually three, when you include the idle mixture with the low unmetered fuel pressure and the high metered fuel pressure. But changing either will often necessitate a change to the other and then you iterate till everything is perfect. You're night about the issue as well, the OP's complaint on idle stall is almost always a combination of idle mixture and the low unmetered fuel pressure - sounds like they only got half of it right when they did the 310HP setup.

Glad you got it resolved soonest! Yep, I never understood why Rocket went with a twin pop/governor on a single, but it is what it is. Thankfully governor failures are rare, but engine oil pressure losses are not in turbo's so good to be aware and to use that soon to be installed engine monitor to help prevent you from being caught up at altitude with low oil pressure.

Not that I know of. As far as I am aware of, none exist in the GA single piston world. They certainly exist in the multi-turbine world but I am not sure at what level, weight or seat capacity, they begin. For our part 91 purposes, the above AC provides guidance on what is FAA approved by referencing industry standards.

That's why we're mostly discussing halon, check this out: https://www.h3rcleanagents.com/support_faq_2.htm Also see FAA AC 20-42D which specifically approves of the blended Halon 1211 and Halon 1301 for both part 91 and part 125 aircraft use: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_20-42D.pdf Although its conceivable that we might need to extinguish a fire in the cockpit in flight, its unlikely given most cockpit fires are the result of an electrical short that can usually be quickly extinguished by turning off the master. We'll usually smell smoke before a fire gets out of hand given the fire retardant material used in the cockpit. The more dangerous engine fire, such as from a exhaust leak or turbo failure, isn't going to be helped by a fire extinguisher in the cockpit in flight, but after an emergency descent to an off airport landing and after any off airport landing it can make all the difference in egressing out the cockpit over perhaps a burning wing from fuel that will also likely be draining into the cockpit area. Egressing a burning plane I do expect would be a much more common usage for our cockpit fire extinguisher than in the confined cockpit at altitude. Yet we can still replenish the cabin air in flight very quickly when needed.

Electrical fires do call for opening the cabin ventilation - after turning off the master. Your earlier POH may not cover this, but here is an excerpt from the Encore:

I am using this unit from Spruce with 0.9 lbs of Halon https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/rta400.php Still going strong many years after installing, although per their reviews, not everyone has been as fortunate.

That's exactly what I did, I have a label with the original weight in oz and date installed. I re-weight it annually. Its secured with a bracket on the floor behind emergency gear release.

I don't know exactly, but I have heard first hand encounters that opening the side window in the Mooney vents smoke instantly. That assumes the source has been extinguished and may not be sufficient to get a burning plane on the ground from altitude. But nevertheless I found that re-assuring and just passing it on for what its worth.

Hedrick Fire Protection (866-306-8130) says they can refill Halon portables, but they send it to their HQ in Chino, CA and it takes 1-2 weeks. I am still using a non refillable unit at 0.8 lbs for Halon that I thought I would eventually upgrade to a refillable one when it expires. But the smallest refillables are at 1.25 lbs and since mine hasn't lost pressure since 2011 I have yet to make the move. Given the longevity I might just stick with the the non-refillable since they are also exempt from what I thought was a mandatory 6 yr hydro test (if that applies to the small portables).

I believe Halon 1301 is considered the very best for aviation purposes, yet in the small GA sized cylinders we are more likely to get a blend of Halon 1211/1301. Although its no longer manufactured its still readily available since its recycled - and available directly from Spruce here in CA. (not sure, but I think its still made in Canada and imported.) Nothing outperforms it for its weight and thus as long as it is available its still the superior product for our aviation needs. Because of its essential need, nothing is limiting it sale, import or availability, just manufacturing here in the US because its a CFC. Smart recycling should maintain its availability for some time. BTW, when you purchase one, if you stick to a unit with gauge on it, then the unit will be serviceable and refillable by folks that service fire extinguishers everywhere. the gauge tells you when it needs to be serviced. The smaller units that may have a bit less than a pound of Halon, that do not have gauges, are not re-fillable. You need to weight these annually for loss of weight (Halon) to know whether they are still good. They can still last many years providing they retain their weight but do not offer the advantage of being refillable that you get with the larger units.

A prop shop can bench test and probably polishing/cleaning the pilot valve will remedy it - that's usually the cause of such fluctuations.

Yes, but I am referring to egressing a burning aircraft; especially if you are injured or have an injured pax that can’t move instantaneously. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course. Fire is very likely in any off airport landing. My cargo is to precious to fly without one! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's odd, but if a leak we should see MAP fluctuations in your engine data but the RPM should be held stable by your governor even with the MAP fluctuations. You really need that engine monitor soonest! A simple test though for an induction leak is to run at slow idle, a higher than normal MAP at idle and rough idle are good signs of leakage. Some leaks can be problematic to find though - may only vent air as opposed to suck air.

Do you have data? if so, post a link. I looked but couldn't find any. But would suspect a prop governor issue if confirmed in data.

Your original tach was never an approved source for setting the RPM limits either. We're required to use a much more accurate source such as an approved optical tach so that RPM can be set accurately not to exceed redline. You really want to ignore it now because you couldn't tell it was overspeeding before? How much error becomes important? As an example, I just flew with a client who's OEM RPM was reading 120 RPM higher than actual (opposite issue). He wondered why is performance was so far below book. A 50 year old instrument can be pretty far off without getting re-calibrated. Modern engine analyzers give us accurate data, generally at the same accuracy test gauges do. Its a shame not to make use of it.

Get it adjusted so it doesn't overspeed - it is a redline, not an optional, okay sometimes or okay for brief excursions

Nothing unique about the Bravo, other than the engine model. All the Mooney airframes built-in O2 system use a 2 stage Scott regulator where the second stage is an altitude compensating one. The only differences in the system are in the size of the onboard tank.

I'd give Dan @LASAR a call. I don't know where else, except an owner taking a pict of theirs. I might be able to do that soon.