kortopates

Indeed, a TIT above 1450F is essentially an emergency calling for the boost pump because of the insufficient fuel flow in the more modern POH's where 1450F is called out as a redline limitation for full power TIT. I would get it properly adjusted before further flight.

So much for being at least 35' above the departure end of the runway threshold on IFR takeoff! Wonder what went wrong and if it was in the pre-departure planning or on the take-off roll? Looked pretty close to near disaster. Those poor pilots must have been shaking once they saw the damage to their plane. I would have been.

i am pretty doubtful about the wire run being too close to a power cable and I would think it doesn't get real close to the master relay near the battery, which I think would be a bigger emitter. If it happens again I'd be wondering if you have a defective unit and whether ACK can bench test it to confirm. The owner seemed very responsive with past inquiries.

Yes Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

'bout time Robert!! But no, after what must be at least 3 or 4 years the only false activation I have seen was when I accidentally tripped the panel switch when I was buried under neath the panel and reached up to the top of the panel to help pull myself out. I got that same call within 5 minutes - maybe it was only 3! - and was apologizing to them over the phone for my stupidity. But boy was I happy to see how quickly they are on it should something really happen and I do need help.

Like Paul says above, the 252 is much easier to manage than than the 231 and was my excuse to upgrade to 231 after my wife got her private license. If I had it to do all over again, I woulod have wished I had just skipped the 231 and gone for the perfection in the 252.

It would be good to read you policy and understand what your coverage limits really are. For starters, Traverse is an agency or broker not an underwriter. The actual insurance company that wrote your policy, or the underwriter, that Traverse sold you will be clearly shown on your policy. You should be able to ask your broker to provide a pdf electronic copy of it for you via email. Its a good idea to review, not just to review coverage as you expected, but also for errors. By broker made a few errors including model that even got repeated on subsequent years by the underwriter but were always corrected once I brought them to their attention.

Agreed, back in early 2000's when this Avweb article on the subject was written no one excluded Mexico. But it's possible the insurance company is trying to say Mexico may not recognize your US written policy which is a lie I hear all the time from US brokers that want to sell you more insurance or just don't know any better. https://www.avweb.com/news/insure/181584-1.html Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I got the alert or test on my cell earlier today as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed, although the subject is LED's the brightest lights by far (typically a factor of 5) over LED's remain the HID. Mine from knots2u are claimed to be over 600,000 candle power and draw much less power than even the high powered LED's. I've had my set since before the LED's where an option and have been trouble free. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or you could be turning the knob without turning the shaft of the control under it, if is slipping. A set screw keeps the plastic knob aligned to the shaft.

My suggestion, go through the list of Mooney CFI’s and pick one near where you are purchasing the plane. Secondly, delay departure to a weekday when you have access to a mechanic to fix anything needed after a local shake down and training flight before starting a long x-ctry. Its rarer than you might realize to pickup up a plane new to you without some sqawks even if freshly annual’d. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is, but does not have a reputation for being friendly enough that it would be recommended for a first timer. A few complaints unfortunately. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wouldn't bother to fly into Nogales, MX just to conduct a couple hours business and depart. Not unless you plan to do more trips into MX soon. The reason being is that you'll have to buy the entry permit at near $100, spend near a couple hours going through the paper work lines and then when you depart, its another international flight out that requires extra time to process. Save flying the trip to Mexico for when you are headed to a fun destination and have a long weekend or more. Unless you want to use the trip to get your Mexican Multi-entry permit out of the way for another trip(s) down before the end of the year when the multi-entry permit will expire.

Its much worse than that, its changes the type of policy from pleasure flying to operating the plane as a business which means $$$$

Virtually everyone buys the Mooney first and then gets transition training in their Mooney. What you are looking for is a school or club with a Mooney. The CFI will be come with the school or club. That’s the only way you’ll get left seat dual in a Mooney you don’t own. Many Mooney CFI’s here, but none of us carry the additional insurance required to rent our planes and most of us wouldn’t want too. There are a couple of such schools here in Southern California, but I have never heard of any in Texas. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As above, with a good flow meter like the Precise Flight A5 and a pulse Oximeter. The good flow meters aren’t marked in volume but in altitude. That gets you started and then you fine tune based on your spo2. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe, but my point is that with out the widespread cooperation of everyone involved, afforded by not allowing them to be used in that manner, the NTSB reports would loose their credibility and would have very little value to any of us.

Not a lawyer but it seems obvious the role of the NTSB would severely be impeded if their findings were allowed to be used as evidence in court. The goal of the NTSB is entirely to promote safety by not assessing blame but by getting all experts together to work cooperatively to determine what may have gone wrong and to make recommendations to avoid similar outcomes in the future. Cooperation would end the second those involved believed their admissions could possibly be used against them as evidence for negligence, admitting fault, wrong doing etc. I don't know to what extent the participants are protected but clearly without the provision to not treat the reports as evidence they would not get the necessary cooperation they need to do their job.

I recall Gretchen, past Mooney CEO when the early Acclaim Type S debuted, showed us that the factory demo bird had no problem doing a bit over 240 kts and beating book numbers. But the Acclaim as a "Turbo Normalized" engine was pure marketing aimed at those uncomfortable of getting into a Turbo'd aircraft because of all the things different pilots may be concerned about such as the added complexity, increased cost of maintenance and ownership etc. The Acclaim uses a TSIO-550-G that TCM classifies as a turbo engine complete with dual turbo chargers, inter-coolers and automatic waste gates. They tried too early on thinking since they de-rated the engine for installation into the Mooney from 310 to 280 HP that they could tell prospective owners that it was only required a relatively little boost. Well the boost didn't decrease by de-rating the engine - the RPM did. To the best of my knowledge, the factory didn't persist very long in referring to it as a turbo-normalized engine. Perhaps because they looked pretty stupid if their prospective buyer had or later spoke to their competitors at Cirrus who did offer their SR22 with both both a TCM Turbo engine and a TAT Turbo Normalized engine and learned what the differences where. (Cirrus only offers the TCM TSIO-550-K turbo option and the NA IO-550-N as options today). But I still hear (as recently as AOPA Santa Fe) sales folks tell prospective owners its "Like turbo normalized" because its only boosted by a few inches. But a Turbo Normalized engine is entirely different. Its begins with its NA counter part engine, such as the IO-550-G and adds on the single or dual turbo chargers limited to 30" - i.e. no boost above sea level - but the same efficient 8.5 to 1 compression cylinders. But all "turbo" engines, including the TSIO-550-G , use lower compression pistons at 7.5 to 1 since they are operating at higher boost than sea level and need to preserve their detonation margin with lower compression pistons. Incidentally the earlier 280HP Ovations also installed de-rated IO-550-G, but the current offering is using the full 310HP of the -G engine.

The bottom plug is in a much harsher environment than the top and will get dirty and foul well before the top plug. Then once it goes cold, it accelerates as what must of happened with your lower plug. If you had the data, it might be possible to go back to the last flight and see the EGT2 first rise. But challenging that is that at first it could be an erratic rise which would help to mask that it has risen once it stayed high. I don't know what your CHTs are running at in cruise but assuming they are in the normal 300-375+F range I doubt the plug's heat range could contribute to the issue.

Boy Dan, that a pair of the worst spark plugs I have seen in some time!! Holy cow! Indeed like Rich pointed out above, I'd want to take a closer look at that #2 cylinder - both a warm compression test and borescope. These days a very good articulating borescopes are very reasonable and this one for $200 is awesome https://www.amazon.com/Vividia-Ablescope-VA-400-Borescope-Articulating/dp/B00GY7C9ZW/ref=sr_1_21?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1537651824&sr=1-21&keywords=borescope But the preponderance of oil at the bottom could be due to leaky rings or valve guides. The compression test could be a good first clue to leakage past the rings as you listen to where the air goes. But the bigger concern is that the bottom plug looks so bad that it must have been offline for some time meaning perhaps several takeoffs where done without it? But maybe that was just one long flight that fouled that bottom plug so badly. I am pretty sure Dan is already familiar with this but I'd thought I include a brief description of how to do a run-up with your engine analyzer for other pilots that may not be aware to avoid ever taking off with this condition. During the normal run up, after temps stabilize at your run up rpm, put the engine analyzer into Normalize mode so that all EGTs are in the middle of their respective bars. Then switch to one mag. You should see every plug rise in EGT without exception. Without a rise that cylinder is probably already running on one plug. (If so, see what happens next on the other mag). Then go back to both and watch the EGT temps come back down to the middle of the bar. Then switch to the other Mag. Once again they should all rise without exception. But if you has one that didn't rise at all on the other mag, now you'll likely see that cyl EGT drop off the bar - it just went cold because the only plug that was firing just got turned off. Every run up should be pay attention to these details and give each isolated mag a few seconds to observe the rise - they are far more important than monitoring the RPM drop - which I would ignore and instead watch for the EGTs to rise. For the more advanced, the full rich mag test is not as revealing as doing a lean one, preferably in flight. You might be more likely to discover a weak plug with a lean mixture. When doing so you really do need to ignore the RPM drop limits, if doing this on the ground since a lean mixture can result in easily exceeding them, but instead continue to look for the all important rise in each plug on a single mag. The details are much more readable in the downloaded data with a sampling rate of every 1-2 sec. Set up a free account on Savvy to monitor the data, our free web tools make this pretty straight forward.

Exactly, and as others have said above. But to get a real education on the differences in approach types and all about different WAAS approaches (since LNAV is NOT a WAAS approach) I highly recommend you download the FAA IFR handbooks available to you for free from the FAA website. Back in circa '82 there were no useful technical manuals put out from the FAA - at least my opinion was they pretty much sucked pushing us to other commercial sources. Well now they offer the best and most thorough material out there and I am of the opinion that the other authors out there continue to sell them because they provide an alternate style of explanation some find helpful and other find more entertaining. But if you just want the technical details and explained pretty well you can't beat the FAA publications these days. Go to https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/ And download the Instrument Flying Handbook (IFH) and the Instrument Procedures Handbook (IPH) As a CFII and college instructor on this material, these handbooks together with the FAR/AIM are really the bible for instrument training. (incidentally Jepp publishes their own version of the IPH using all the Jepp products instead if you are so interested)

Well hopefully, on an approach Partial Panel you showed him how using your DTK vs TRK on the GPS was much better info than using the VCC! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very good! You got the full training with waas GPS. Typically they have you fly one approach with the AP so you can demonstrate proper interception and configuration relative to the AP limitations (which he might have covered in the oral) and give you a departure of some kind. That was fast! I think average is more like 6 months with written done. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk