kortopates

Most of the commenters have a good understanding of the impacts of an induction leak. To clarify some the discussion above, we publish the above test because it works for all engines, carbureted and fuel injected (FI), but its actually a pretty poor test for FI engines. I have a much better test based on gami spreads for FI engines that I pass on to clients whenever we suspect an induction leak since the 10" MAP test isn't always conclusive at all - its just so-so but has the advantage of being doable for any engine. An induction leak will most certainly alter the mixture, but the degree is entirely dependent on MAP versus ambient pressure. as Bob @Bob - S50, Rich @N201MKTurbo and Hector @Hector were pointing out so well above. Operating a FI engine at WOT, will mask any effects of an induction leak, pretty much entirely. Why? Its basic physics since their is no differential pressure gradient across the intake system and ambient atmospheric pressure - they are equal and air will follow the path of least resistance. But the symptoms present themselves whenever ambient atmospheric pressure is very different from MAP. This is most apparent in a normally aspirated engine operating at idle when MAP is about 15+" less than ambient making the symptoms much worse. In the NA example operating at idle, the leak allows a greater amount of air to enter the cylinder causing an overly lean mixture. In a turbo, though we can see an overly rich mixture at altitude since a much higher MAP than ambient atmospheric pressure is leaking out the air resulting in a overly rich mixture. Furthermore, a leak near the cylinder intake will effect just that cylinder. A leak earlier in the intake system could effect one entire side and a leak in a cross over pipe could effect a couple cylinders (the latter mostly apply to carbureted induction systems). We can also see leaks from leaky sniffle valves/cylinder drains. Leaks can be very troublesome to find/detect since they may only leak with a large pressure differential and only when a vacuum is applied. The latter can make them very hard to find given one of the most popular test is to pressurize (rather than apply a vacuum) to the induction system and the spray it with soapy water to look for bubbles. The above is only entirely true for FI engines. Carbureted engine induction leaks are even more complicated in a sense because a carbureted engine isn't just leaking air, its leaking a mixture of air and fuel which is in different states of fuel atomization depending on how close the leak is to the carburetor vs the cylinder. But unlike with the FI engine, the notion that a leak at WOT doesn't present symptoms doesn't apply to carbureted engines - it sure can.

Out of curiosity I checked the FARs and was surprised that part 23 only requires an outlet for every person, but the requirement for a pilot O2 gauge and control doesn't begin till Part 25 for Transport aircraft. However, the last sentence leaves it in a gray area ripe for difference in FSDO opinion. Part 23.2320 (e) If an oxygen system is installed in the airplane, it must— (1) Effectively provide oxygen to each user to prevent the effects of hypoxia; and (2) Be free from hazards in itself, in its method of operation, and its effect upon other components. But we know it's not possible to read a gauge in the back of the hat rack while piloting. I sure can't bend my neck anywhere near that far; especially while buckled into the front seat. I keep some small emergency backup O2 cylinders in the seat pocket for flying in the flight levels using the system below. Seems especially appropriate for a system that you can't monitor the supply in flight. http://www.mhoxygen.com/portable-constant-flow/emergency-systems Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It definitely goes both ways, higher or lower. But I don’t think we can say conclusively one way or the other depending if top or bottom. The moral is the same though, we can't rely on gasket/washer CHT sensors. Anyone stuck with an advisory installation is much better off installing an adapter sensor that piggybacks off the OEM sensor - they are much more accurate and the best you can do till going to TSO'd primary monitor. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like Lance says above, it doesn't sounds like the Mooney OEM system, in fact with the gauge in the hat rack where it can't be read really sounds like a hangar fairy system. Makes me wonder if you'll find any paper work for approval given the setup? If they used the same O2 port used by Mooney it will be a Scott port fitting, same for the outlets in the cabin which may not be OEM either. The O2 ports use a high pressure needle valve - which is probably what is leaking. If I was in your position, not being sure what you have, I'd pull the port and send it to these folks for repair. https://www.c-l-aero.com/ They are a repair station for O2 systems. Its a very inexpensive repair and Jeff will return it to you very quickly. But if you're serious about flying high with that, I'd run the 1/8 copper line for the gauge and cable up to the pilot sidewall for a proper install so you'll be able to monitor your O2 supply. Imagine how the accident report would read if you ran out of O2 up high and became hypoxic or worse. There is a bracket you'll need by the regulator and a little hardware at the sidewall but I doubt the parts will add up to that much. All of these parts are in your IPC.

You mentioned pitching for Vy on the missed. But consider, what is the min required climb rate to ensure terrain separation and what was your rate? Very possibly you were pitching far steeper than necessary. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Given the above it’s unlikely pressure from the pump removed sealant from in front of the speed brake if it’s not in the immediate vicinity. So its probably not the fault of the line boy - not that that helps you. But still dripping after 90 minutes it can't not be a leak. But this can't be patched from the speed brake closed off area. The tank will have to be opened in front of speed brake and patched. In fact the real source of the leak could be elsewhere and it's just running downhill behind the tank to the speed brake area where it can drain. Good sealant isn't going to come off from the pressure of the gas pump. But of course it's foolish to push older sealant like that and get it to start coming off any sooner that it needs too! Abusive even, considering as David says above, our pride and joy deserves more respect than yours was shown. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If there is a leak, it’s in the long range tank just in front of the speed brake leaking into the speed brake area where it is draining out of around the vinyl tube. Hard to believe some fuel spilled over the wing running down speed brakes would drip for more than a few minutes. Is the speed brake anywhere near the fuel filler neck? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As a CFI who specializes in IFR training I don't even think its the best question to ask. Sure, we always had IFR students provide expected approach frequencies for their IFR x-ctry flights. The purpose of this wasn't so much to provide all the frequencies they would need, as that impractical for TRACONs, but to be sure the pilot had the skills to look up a frequency. Given the resources available to us I see no value in putting together a frequency list: For Center Frequency's, we have Nearest ATC frequency in our modern GPS's. For those that aren't that comfortable with their GPS, we still have the enroute map to look it up - but its a much slower process. For TRACON frequencies, its not so easy. They aren't listed on IFR enroute charts. There are good reasons for this since the sector frequencies in use is very dynamic based on the amount of traffic and controllers working. Sectors merge as traffic decreases or manpower dictates. But TRACON or Approach Control frequencies are available in a few places. On VFR sectionals and TAC's, they are available where a VFR pilot would be entering the TRACON's airspace, at the outskirts - but nothing is published on maps for the middle of the TRACON's airspace. Nor are TRACONs included in the Nearest frequencies list. For the many different frequencies in use inside the TRACON, the best bet is too look for a nearby airport and either look an approach frequency on an approach for that airports or look at the list Airport frequencies for an Approach frequency for that Airport. You'll get very close if not the correct controller. If you don't get the correct frequency the first time, getting one nearby that you can establish communications with will tell you whom to contact within a few seconds; often with a hand off too if you are talking to the right facility. So in my opinion as long as you know how to look up a good frequency, I see no value in spending time to generate a frequency list you should not need but should be able to look up should the need the arise. But these skills are important to the VFR pilot as well, especially on x-country flights where one might start with flight following with a TRACON for example, and then get dropped when leaving their airspace without a hand off. Yet with the need to re-acquire communications ahead very soon before entering class B or C airspace ahead. To me, the bigger challenge in often landing or departing uncontrolled fields; often on an IFR flight plan. At such airports I want to query the Approach or Center as on how low I can be and still maintain comm. Both to cancel with them before a phone call will be required on the ground and to know when I can expect to re-acquire communications with them on departure. So I always ask and plan accordingly. No way to look that up.

I don't really get it. I used to use AOPA flight planner, and then a Jepp windows product that was awesome with detailed performance modeling with integrated wx, TFRs and much more. But these days iPad with your chosen software that integrates with Connext on the Garmin Navigator of is so much more convenient. And now at least 3 apps are intergarted with Foeflight, Garmin Pilot and the free FltPlan.com app. I must be missing something as I don't understand why one wouldn't want to move into the smart device world for flight planning. One can always type their fight plan into AOPA flight planner for a wx briefing etc. But the tablets do that really well too.

I am a fan of doing much of the training at night as well. I learned that way myself and it is much more realistic than daytime with the hood for all the reasons stated above. But I couldn't imagine getting an IR without logging lots of IMC time. But I understand in a great many areas of country it isn't really possible to do it any other way. CU is not the kind of clouds to train in nor fly in. But also as stated above, one has to get the prerequisite skills down before they are ready to fly approaches and then fly them under IFR where a 200' altitude excursion is a pilot deviation. So it takes some time to build up it, but once there I wouldn't pass up any opportunity to get real world IMC training. My student's log lots of IMC thanks to the marine layer which is the perfect training environment. But I couldn't imagine a new IR pilot heading off into IMC conditions for the first time without an instructor on board - even though it happens all the time. Much better to get actual during training. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is what I have installed as well and love it - for about 15 years now. I do pull the breaker when practicing slow flight and stalls since it pretty loud. But for normal flying its an awesome device! Highly recommend it. As @Mr Bill says above, not only a whole lot cheaper than rebuilding the airplane, but it will save a whole lot of Mooney's from being totaled by insurance. Although some still get fixed, many get relegated to being parted out while the number of flying Mooney's decline.

That's great news and a very plausible explanation for all this grief. Considering the aux pump has been replaced its even better news that this should be all behind you once its all cleaned up.

Yesterday we had a another K model join the mix of 5 Mooney's to land with the gear up in the last 7 reporting days. Not a good streak for us Mooney pilots.

We'll have to wait for the fuel injection specialist to bench test your servo and let you know what caused the issue. But its likely the same debris you found in the fuel divider is responsible for gumming up internals of the servo's and significantly reducing its ability to precisely meter fuel. That's my guess any way. As mentioned via savvy, its still potential concern to make sure there isn't any more of this stuff upstream that could cause further havoc after you re-install the fuel components. If I am right about the debris being the issue, knowing what the debris material is is and its likely source could prove valuable. But you'll find out soon enough what the fuel guys learns and he too may have some suggestions on that.

Good observations and so sadly so typical. The pattern is a more risky aspect of the flying we do; especially when we include the runway as well and I believe strongly that the risk all go up dramatically from flying poor patterns. Mark @midlifeflyer is right above in that this risk doesn't stem from lack of engine reliability. But @Mooneymite and @Marauder nail it above. Its the very fear of banking that leads to wide and long patterns, that sets up pilot for all the common mishaps since it leads to going slow and level with lots of power once the pilot gets low. It especially contributes to the fatal stall spin accidents and has certainly got to compound much of the runway loss of control we see from pilots dragging it in with lots of power to the runway. Such a practice leaves them with large excess of forward energy compared to if they were coming in steeper with very little power with the flare dissipating a much greater proportion of the remaining forward energy in the roll out. But that very fear of over banking, is causing pilots to instead maintain high AOA, often with lots of power once they realize they are low, and they end up putting themselves into the danger they were improperly trying to avoid. Its add to their vulnerability to downdrafts and stall/spin etc. Yet their fear of steeper bank angles is unfounded by the laws of physics when one is no longer maintaining 1G unaccelerated level flight but is in a descent with a negative AOA with the wings unloaded. So I believe the issue is largely training to learn that by starting a constant descent from abeam the intended point of landing and unloading the wing that a trimmed aircraft is in no danger of stalling in the pattern. At least not while their maintaining that constant descent to the runway. Things only go wrong when they start pulling the yoke back. Keep the pattern to a standard pattern and there won't be a need.

Suggest some nylon spiral wrap. It just looks like it will chaff through in no time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Enforcement will be as simple as it is now. If they fly out of or into a towered field they'll be nailed for sure. But if it's in and out of uncontrolled fields they'll probably get away with it every time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a similar setup, and with a switch to select between my #1 and #2 GTNs. Pretty simple to add.

yes, silly, its not what "you" call them but their position on the panel and what they control that determines primary.

Wow! "It take a good 6 hrs to reassemble correctly The tail bolts back on in less than hr and the rest of time is reinstalling the wiring plugs all are marked." I just can't imagine anything going wrong! Nor can I imagine why there is only i bid on it!

I always have the gear down as I am entering the pattern since it helps stabilize and slows the aircraft to pattern speed. But I very much share the sentiment or concern of wanting to make sure the runway can always be made. But IMO, the solution to ensuring this is in the pattern we fly. I fly and encourage the FAA standard pattern of 1/2 to max 1 mile abeam (right out of the FAA flying handbook). My typical pattern is right at the middle of that at ~2/3 to 3/4 nm abeam the runway and start the base at the 45 degree mark. I am not worried about not making the airport with that pattern. But my third and final check is on short final looking at the numbers, which always includes checking the floor indicator. Yet at an uncontrolled field, and even towered airports, I constantly get behind someone in a much slower C150 or C172 that thinks they're a B747 with a 1.5 mile abeam downwind and then fly a good mile past the 45 for good measure. I haven't forgotten why student pilots fly those kind of patterns, but too many CFI's do them a disservice by not teaching a proper pattern that begins with the power reduction and descent abeam the intended landing point. Its my biggest pet peeve in the pattern as I do feel vulnerable following traffic like that when there is no reason for it. Easily fixed too by an instructor that starts pulling the power for them!

Generally, or perhaps I should say most commonly, the intent of this test is to verify all the cylinders are getting an even amount of fuel relative to each other. Its not so much the volume but that the height or volume of all the bottles is very close to one another. Without gami or position tuned injectors they should be very even and to test for that its more commonly done with the fuel injectors on first - unless one was really expecting clogged fuel divider was altering the fuel but typically one would try that after finding the fuel flow was not evenly distributed and the try it without the injectors to attempt to isolate it between the divider output and the injectors.

Be careful out there. The summer flying season appears to be well underway and in the last 5 reporting or business days, the FAA incidents/accidents data base is listing 4 Mooney's that landed with the gear up: a C, E, J & M model. Although most probably not all were accidental forgetting to lower the gear, that is the most common cause (including some of the "reported" gear collapses). Stay vigilant, it can happen to any of us when distracted. https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:93:::NO:::

Many of us with glass panels, both G500 and Aspen, have gone with the ESI-500 since it was designed to be a glass backup and it also provides navigation backup. Its really the best option out there for a glass backup and an elegant solution - but its expensive.

very brief post doesn't give us much to go on, but if you have an engine monitor the first thing would be to download the data and confirm what happened and for how long. But if you truly exceeded lycoming redline of 500F I'd be borescoping the cylinder(s) before further flight as well as looking for signs of any cylinder cracks or other excessive heat damage.