kortopates

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

AVEMCO has never offered smooth limits - only per person sub-limits.This is standard across the industry till the pilot asks for and pays for smooth limits if the pilot(s) meet their additional requirements - except AVEMCO will not write smooth limit Limiting hull insurance to "true value" is new information indeed, have you seen anything publicly you can point too. Not doubting you but interested to learn more about it since that must be fairly recent. Re-reading your post I see you are referring to non-passenger sub-limits. I was referring to passenger sub-limits above. This does appear to be a change different from the rest of the industry - one that really increases the liability exposure of the pilot/owner as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or flown! Statistically greater chance of fuel exhaustion or starvation - given so little is known yet. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Far from "'bout time" - you're on a very accelerated schedule from whats typical! What kind of avionics equipment are you being tested on? e.g. vor/ils only? GPS? AP? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The video of the Archer pilot porpoising is in the first post of our recent long thread on the topic

Exactly, my same experience except for a possible departure procedure added by the TRACON. Although I get my expecter clearance via an email from flight aware since they were the very first to provide this service and also GP as a GP users. Always the same. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I always thought it was required phraseology. I can't remember ever clearance delivery or ground, after read back of clearance they always say something like "inform tower you are departing IFR". Then when ready to go, my call to Tower is "Mooney 123.., holding for IFR release" then tower will say "Mooney ... Hold for release" and I have to repeat essentially the same call. Only if the field is co-located with approach control or under center airspace have I ever been immediately cleared for release. We also get VFR flight following squawk codes from ground and clearance but those do not require a coordinated release with the TRACON. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only con on the tanks is the challenge of knowing how much fuel you have in the tanks since their isn't a fuel gauge in the extended tanks. I found with my factory OEM gauges, they under reported till my tanks where half full of normal capacity (about 18 gals) - since that is the only time when all the fuel is in the main tanks. Certainly not an insurmountable task and much has been written about this elsewhere, but its an added complexity to consider for anyone adding them.

I couldn't agree more. Although I am hopeful in addition to an APP, Mitre (if they pursue this to completion), additionally provides the web services that all our favorite E6B apps can use to integrate the technology directly; such as GP and FF. The current PDC by FF is nice, but its only a small step in what we've had since Flightware began giving the expected ATC clearance many years ago. Its only drawback is it's out of the FAA central computer before a local TRACON adds in a departure procedure to the clearance (even if its only to fly some specific heading or a departure procedure), but otherwise its exactly what we get. And we get it right after filing.

The only drawbacks are the obvious - they won't write smooth limits, only sub-limits and their coverage area is more restrictive if one wants to fly internationally south (I forget exact limits). But the huge plus is they will ensure pilots with a claim history that most others won't touch at fairly reasonable rates. After 3-5 yrs without a claim one can go back to more competitive market including smooth limits. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To get started, you can wire your Shadin FF sensor in parallel to your EDM 700. You may need to enable the FF option with JPI's help (firmware update) or just go into program mode to turn it on. But if your model doesn't have memory with downloadable data, this won't be very helpful. (JPI use to add that as a $200 upgrade years ago.) But otherwise for same cost of your injectors you can buy the 830 color display as an upgrade returning your old one and be 10x ahead WRT your needed modern analyzer, then add MAP and RPM sensors when you are able. Your existing harness will plug into a new 830 display. You do need a little panel space to fit it somewhere. I see it has data recording, so a USB connection will allow you to apply a firmware update if it's needed to enable FF. Set the data recording interval from it's 6 sec default to it's fastest - which is 2sec. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Alex, you can't possibly do what you are trying to do with pen and paper. You don't have the data resolution. You need a monitor with 1-2 second downloadable data resolution. Unfortunately, the every 0.5 GPH resolution you tried to record makes it worthless. Just maybe you got the cyl rankings from leanest to richest. That's very helpful if true, but I wouldn't trust your data till you demonstrate it's repeatable. Honestly, the first step should have been an engine analyzer with FF, MAP and RPM. Next read up on LOP, I suggest Mike Busch's article on Red Fin - you can download it on our Savvy website. Next, start with baby steps, after the engine monitor. See the GAMI AFMS supplement for mixture guidance - between Mike's article and the GAMI AFMS I mentioned note you only need 50 LOP at 75% and I can tell you your engine most likely won't support 75% with 50 LOP. So start at ~60% power which is just a little LOP. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What it really means is the recently added ICA's added at the request of the FAA on maintenance manuals Do Not retroactively apply to airframes manufactured prior to publishing the ICA. They are optional for part 91 just like all SB and Sal's. You can thank Mike Busch and Paul New of Savvy Aviation for this change since they challenged the FAA on this change and the FAA agreed. It was inconsistent with previous rulings by their legal counsel folks whom have always maintained that maintenance manuals produced at the time of manufacture are the only ones legally binding to prevent airframe manufacturers from retroactively making burdensome changes. Thus we are back too the state that the only legal way to make retroactive changes for required maintenance practices and procedures is though the AD process approved by the FAA. Of course that said, every owner should review every ICA instruction, just like every SB and SL, and decide for themselves if they want to comply. Most of us will want to comply with most of them, just as most of us will want to follow the most recent maintenance manual. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll try to wear a Mooney shirt too. Looking forward to it. Thanks for the heads up on the winds.

They are very nice. Here is the Chinese version I rode in. It ran at 350 km/hr and more recently they slowed it to 300 supposedly to save some electricity. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://lasar.com/tools/nose-gear-rigging-tool-gse030008-100 Used ones are available often on ebay - these are usually sold in sets on eBay.

+1 - great product!