kortopates

about a week from memory, but you won't really know till you call Bobbie.

Yours varies by induction air temperature since its measuring air density and thus will vary at each takeoff due to temperature - which is unique to the Lycoming density controller. But 38" is too high. The POH redline limitation is indeed 38" but the full power target setting in the Bravo Maintenance manual is only 35" nominal with a upper limit of 36.5". I'd have it checked per the maintenance manual at your next maintenance interval.

No not really, other than the numbers will come up when you actually takeoff and it really requires a lap around the pattern to get a good read on what MAP & FF really are. But leaving it at 2 3/4" low on MAP was being overly conservative. You have to get the MAP and RPM up to proper limits before you can adjust the FF though, i.e. FF will change or go up with MAP very significantly (as it should).

Because of the firm donuts, as opposed to pneumatic struts used on most other planes, the mooney feels very firm which is entirely normal. Mooney pilots can't really tell by feel when its time to change them, but they are very likely to notice the change after getting new donuts, or perhaps after riding in someone else's Mooney.

Maybe to ground this discussion with a bit of reality from the latest incident data, over the last 10 days of Mooney incidents and accidents the FAA is reporting 5 gear-ups/gear collapses. Of the 5, 3 were reported as gear up landings with 2 as gear collapses. Basic gear maintenance or malfunctions lead the pack of issues leading to Mooney incidents by far, and pilot error is the bigger contributor over maintenance.

Perhaps one thing that may help if not already aware, whenever a TRACON asks you to keep your speed up, they are actually only referring to the approach gate or within about a mile out from the FAF; about the same point your CDI is tightening to approach mode 0.3nm or less. Then you are expected to slow down in able to perform a stabilized approach to the runway. Plus at that point you become towers problem and if they really want you to go faster than normal after the FAF, Tower will let you know but that's very rare unless its a Class C or B airport.

I think its unrealistic suggest the Pilot owner can double check the work done or especially the work not done after an annual inspection. Its much more sensible IMO for the pilot/owner to take a more active role during maintenance. After all, owners already have a huge advantage to do so, they're responsible for the maintenance of their aircraft per 91.403, 405, 407 and 409. Its rental pilots that really have to have a lot of blind faith that the owner and maintenance personnel are doing all that's required. But for owners to best understand what's going on with the aircraft maintenance of their aircraft I don't think there is any better way that participating and learning through owner assisted annuals. Take part and learn what's going on and be sure the Mooney 100 hrs inspection checklist is being used as a minimum along with the current Service manual section on inspections and servicing, supplemented by Mooney Service instructions/bulletins. If you're still want to take a greater role, enroll in your local community college's A&P program. If you're fortunate enough to have access too. That's exactly how I got into aircraft maintenance. But I can tell you from my own personal experience that getting the required training to fix an airplane is far more rigorous than any pilot license, which is all we need to break them. But for me, A&P school was a lot of fun, (at night after my daily day job). But you don't have to become an A&P to actively participate in your aircraft maintenance. You can also take advantage of SavvyAviation's contracted maintenance oversight to provide second opinions and get good unbiased advice.

I think Anthony meant, old accident, but new video. The final was actually out Sept 2018. The report: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20160421X94028&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA Seriously? "When asked where he obtained the EW of 1,804 lbs, the pilot replied that he retrieved this EW from the internet. That was only one of several issues that led to this fatal including one sick engine with mags mistimed by 8 degrees, governor incorrectly set and insufficient FF which all conspired to limit takeoff RPM to 2430 rpm - which is 270 rpm low! But as they say about all accident, its takes several mistakes or issues to all align to allow an accident, any of which if removed will likely prevent it. In this accident, if the pilot had briefed an emergency takeoff briefing including an abort point down the runway, this accident would have been prevented. I hope anyone still not doing an takeoff emergency brief that includes the abort point for takeoff realizes how dangerous that can be departing from any marginal field. However, you have to do it for every takeoff to build the discipline to always do it. But the excerpt quoted from the Flying handbook by identifying the point where you expect to be airborne and then aborting there if not off is too late; especially true in this case or you wouldn't even try to take off on this runway following that rule. The 50/70 rules is much safer and realistic way to do it and usually easier way to do it. Easier since there is typically something by the midpoint you can identify before the takeoff run to use to call abort. ( I don't think its realistic to judge when for example you come to 1250' of runway used as this pilot calculated for this takeoff.) This simple rule though is based on seeing your IAS airspeed reach 70% of rotate speed by 50% of the runway and then aborting if not, while you still have ample room to stop. Especially this time of year with high density altitude takeoff being much more common place is a good time to make it a habit. Here is a good quick article on it https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/performance/how-to-use-the-50-70-rule-of-thumb-for-your-takeoff-this-summer/

I have no idea what that means, but the test for the donuts is in the service manual which measures how compressed they are by the gap at the top. The other very useful indication, although not in the SM is to jack up the aircraft and see if the donuts will fully expand with the weight off such that you can't turn them easily by hand after a few minutes. Or If you see cracking in the rubber, you don't have to look any further. You can also look at the date code, that includes a 2 digit year code. if 10+ years you are likely due.

I am not sure what you mean by "high" EGTs, what I do see is an elevated EGT3 at takeoff on the 2nd flight of 6/25. I'd want to to know what the FF was at takeoff to see if it was a bit depressed. Variation in FF at takeoff can explain the higher EGTs. Another is induction leakage. Unless you're engine is purring very smoothly at idle, I'd suggest pressure testing the induction system to find and eliminate any leakage which hurts mixture distribution from a little to a lot. Do you have the CHT alarm set on you EDM? I suggest you set it up the CHT alarm for 420F and treat it is as a real emergency once a cyl is getting that hot. But keep in mind its a 100x easier to keep CHTs cooler by not letting get that high. Unless obstacles require it, and especially with a long runway, accelerate to well over Vy by 10-20 kts as soon your in ground effect and they climb out with the higher IAS of Vy+ 10-20 kts as early in the climb as possible. This will go a long ways to keeping the CHTs cooler. Also avoid leaning till CHTs really come down with some altitude and you see EGTs getting pretty rich which looks like at about 1250-1300F from your data. Now that you have download capability with your monitor, I suggest you fly the Savvy Test profile. From your gami sweeps, even though it will show you have pretty poor mixture distribution you can still learn your cylinder rankings from leanest to richest, which will help you with leaning ROP since you want to lean by your leanest ROP. Plus the lean Mag test will provide good diagnostic data on your ignition system and show us if there is a mag issue. After you get some good baseline data, you can do like what Anthony suggested above to see if ever so slightly cracking the throttle position improves your mixture distribution. Or if you add Carb temp, you can try a bit of carb heat to see if that helps as well but with out carb temp probe it tends not to be repeatable. If so you'll, see it a tighter EGTs spread and should be able to confirm with a narrower gami spread. You don't actually want to see a MAP drop though when you crack throttle just enough to change the airflow, unless you don't get any improvement till you have to crack it that far.

You mean Garey Reeves. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First real day of summer here in SOCAL, hitting 86F inland - hot for us! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow! That's like trading in the old mistress for a much younger model! I hope you find new joy flying her like I expect you will [emoji3] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wondered if the sensors you listed were on the EI harness or not. That explains it. Since you're tooled up, you can get a good supply of the connectors from Mouser Electronics or Digikey (that's where I go once I have part #s) or from EI as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your perspective is welcome and I doubt you are alone. My perspective is that I find there is very little overlap between the written exam and learning how to fly on instruments. It may be a little boring to digest, but the IR isn't nearly as hard for a person that has been flying around 100 hrs or more, talking to ATC on VFR flight following. Plus there are many different avenues to pursue for the written beyond studying test questions, including community college course work, where I teach an advanced IFR ground school that includes simulator time on the redbirds. My point is, it can be hard to understand how to apply the material if ground school consist chiefly of Gleim like study questions. But many other video based training classes I believe solve most of this issue. Especially the community college classes do in an environment where the student can learn from shared experienced from other students as well; but not everyone has access to that. My class even includes a TRACON tour. My approach to instrument training isn't focused on passing the exam, but how to use all your IFR resources to survive when things don't go as expected. If the written isn't done it becomes a distraction very quickly. The other aspect, IMO, is that the only students that have failed to complete instrument training are those that didn't or wouldn't complete the exam. Its frustrating for them when they're getting out to the end and we should be concentrating on the oral but they still haven't gotten the written done and their seeing how inefficient this translate directly to their pocket book and schedule. Its been a real problem for some. The only other significant problem is unique to owner aircraft. Owners suffer from another problem of their own making when they can't quite afford to maintain their own aircraft as in being able to present an airworthy aircraft to the examiner (e.g., either fix broken avionics or rip them out or properly disable and placard - hard to let go of capability you want to fix rather than lose but can't quite afford to fix properly).

Garmin would say they already have, the NXi perspective being used on the current production. And Garmin's level of WAAS for the G1000 has many iterations beyond what Mooney implemented years after Garmin released it. They still can't access any RNAV approaches that had LP with a 0 degree DA. Garmin solved that problem many years ago! The problem has never been Garmin, its always been the factory's need to devote resources to test and approve newer Garmin software. But you can hardly blame the factory since there is very little, if any, $ incentive for them to test and approve Garmin updates. Look how few G1000 users upgraded to WAAS when they could; which was significantly cheaper than ripping out the G1000 suite and building a new panel from scratch - especially if it had a GFC 700 AP.

I suggest you buy a new EI harness. A quality Certified crimp tool cost many hundreds of dollars. Very few A&P's even have this equipment which is basic standard stuff for a avionics tech.

The list is a good start but know how to not just load an IAP, but select a transition other than VTF and then go direct to an IF between the transition fix and the FAF. Know how activate the missed apprch or not if circling. Know how to use OBS mode in GPS mode to fly a hold manually. Know what the different scales of full scale CDI deflection are for Terminal, Enroute and Approach and when they change. .... There is lot more to it than following the magenta line after you have your flight plan entered. Lol's Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lukon, you are much better off getting the instrument written done with a good score before starting instrument flight instruction. Although not required, i personally recommend training in a IFR GPS equipped panel since these days instrument flying is 90% RNAV based. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Peter, I found exact OEM replacement solenoids for just under $200 but mine is a 28v system and may be a different part no since I installed the 6041H202 model, so this may not be an exact match but I didn't look for your number as much as what I used. https://www.peerlesselectronics.com/6041h202-relay I went this route, versus a generic solenoid as a minor mod, so that I wouldn't have to also alter wiring it. It's in a terrible spot to work on. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Awesome suggestion and exactly the way to do it, by consulting the ICA or Precise Flight documentation. But I just wanted to add the caveat that since there are many generations of speed brakes they aren't all the same. Some of the earlier speed brakes, such as my pneumatic actuated brakes, use sealed bearing. Trying to lubricate these is not recommended (Precise says not too) since it can do more harm by attracting dirt than do good. Consult your documentation first.

Overhauling based on an emotional concern isn't necessarily the wisest course of action either; especially from a reliability standpoint. TBO is only one parameter. Calendar time can have more importance. But much better to decide based on the health of the engine. Compression test data is notorious for going up and down and for being an unreliable indicator of cylinder health. So good for you for borescoping the cylinders. But still that's only looking at the cylinders. Even if some cylinders need work, this doesn't mean an engine overhaul is really necessary. Cylinders are changed daily without overhauling. Given the expenses and risks you are rightfully concerned with, you owe it to yourself to read to Mike Busch's book on Engines available at Amazon. That will give you sound guidance on how to better decide when to overhaul. Mike has a third book coming out soon addressing aircraft ownership as well. Anyway, I am only suggesting this because i really believe you'll feel empowered and much more comfortable about delaying engine overhaul till factors discussed in Mike book are really suggesting its time to overhaul, and not just based on some cylinders that are easily repaired or replaced. see https://www.amazon.com/Mike-Busch-Engines-maintenance-troubleshooting/dp/1718608950/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=engines+book+by+Mike+busch&qid=1561608948&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Couldn't tell from your post which model you have - apparently a C model from other post. If you have an engine monitor with downloadable data, open a free account on SavvyAnalysis.com. Then you can upload it and share a link to the data here. Then people can take a look at it. If I knew your N number, I'd take a look to see if I can find your data, but I don't. if you only have a single EGT and CHT, well that's pretty useless. Both EGTs and CHTs can vary very widely or have a large spread on the C model due to being carbureted and the legacy baffling. Hard to go much further without seeing the data.

I wouldn't put anything in an aircraft that didn't meet the flammability/burn test requirements! Fire after an off airport landing is way to common to ignore this. Weight is also important to me.

If you decide to do it, I highly recommend doing it at the MAPA Denver PPP. The Denver PPP always gives you the choice between the Mountain flying course or the traditional venue. That way it's a bit more Mooney specfic with same mountain flying instructors. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk