kortopates

IMO its much more along thorough transition training than the actual required HP endorsement. What I mean by that is that the airframe you do it in will dictate most of it. You won't get nearly the same (transition) training if you did your HP endorsement in a new SR20 or C182 compared to if you did it in any turbo or big bore engine. But if one is really looking to pull out of their transition training what the HP portion is, then @Bryan is right on for a new Turbo pilot, but it can probably be more generalized as "heat management" for most HP. But hopefully its much more than that, for example the engine emergency procedures don't get any more complicated than on turbo engines and it would be a real shame, especially in a turbo checkout, to not go through the emergency procedures and engine limitations so that the pilot understand what they're doing and why. Turbo HP checkouts should also include O2 requirements and use and that includes any longbody with a built in O2 system. But much more than trainer checkouts, the HP checkout should have a strong emphasis on engine management through all flight profiles which is a challenge since most checkouts don't get up very high. So think of it more as transition training specifically tailored to the airframe you are getting it in. It's just that only the first plane you do so in above 200HP will require the endorsement, but all the subsequent planes you do it in will still need comparable training tailored to what you really need in each new airframe.

I expect it will come down to "pay now or pay later". I expect you're looking at one because its priced comparably to that an airframe with a runout engine - given calendar time SMOH if not the hours. So be sure to get a realistic idea of what it will take to overhaul it to the LB spec. I don't have first hand knowledge on this, but given all the changes I would expect it should be priced well under a similar airframe with a LB engine since I'd expect will cost much more to bring the engine upto LB specs. I suspect you might find it more sense to go with a factory reman or overhaul given the cost; if they will take the GB core. But even budgeting for the extra cost of overhaul you'll still want to want to add on the Merlin and intercooler if your at all concerned about turbo performance. And if not, just stick with a J model. Hands down though, the best "deal" among the 231's is to find a 262 conversion. Then you'll have a real turbo with the MB engine used in the 252 without the cumbersome manual wastegate and another 10 kts on the same fuel flow if you believe the POH data.

Indeed - here is the exact wording - it appears in the cockpit section but notice the first line. I don't do it that way either, but I've never found a drip of water in my sumping in my 15+ yrs of ownership. 1. Cockpit Fuel Selector -- It is recommended that wing tank sumps be drained prior to draining gascolator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rt. Tank: Pull Gascolator ring (5 seconds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lt. Tank: Pull Gascolator ring (5 seconds)

Modern POH's say to drain each tank for 5 sec each! That's a few seconds more than I actually do but I imagine enough time to ensure you'd find water if it was up to the fuel pick up level in the tank. Someone previously posted it would be a better idea to sump the tanks individually first just in case you did find water to prevent it from entering the line past the fuel selector to make it easier to get rid of.

But it’s much more rewarding to be our own dispatcher! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but that's from the Glide slope to minimums. The comments where about IF segment min altitudes before the FAF and glide slope. i.e. the altitudes to descend down to on the approach from the IAF till you can capture the GS.

To clarify, are you saying the approaches show the minimum altitudes with the step down fixes in the flight plan when you load an approach? That's helpful, but I understand there is no auto pilot interface like Garmins GAD43e that can can do VNAV with it. I was trying to find that in the pilots manual but could only find altitude constraints that provide the same functionality of the previous Vcalc functionality to descend to a certain AGL or MSL altitude within x NM of some Waypoint in the flight plan based on specified descent rate.

Going through the thread, I see mention of many of the pluses of the GTN's including RF legs, Voice commands, and visual approaches to every runway, but I didn't see mention of the VNAV functionality that loads minimum altitudes on each approach segment and allows you to specify your assigned altitude on the enroute portion and use this for VNAV. Its a huge feature in my mind and the FS510 capability to wirelessly load all nav data, both Garmin and Jepp data is another one. But the GTNs only support 3 of the 6 required RNP nav legs required for RNP approach approval, but I doubt we'll ever see a box for light GA with RNP approach approval since there is a lot more too it.

Just to close on this, the desired feature of typing the flight map data to the charted data is in our Savvy feature request queue for future enhancements. its not a high priority item though because it really doesn't help with diagnosing engine data, but its clearly helpful to the pilot. But I have no idea when we might see progress in this area.

Follow the instructions for obtaining the Savvy Test flight profile data here: http://content.savvyanalysis.com/static/pdf/SavvyAnalysisFlightTestProfiles.pdf It should be done at WOT at a power level no more than 65%. Pulling off the rocker covers and measuring valve lift or depression height in comparison to an adjacent cylinder will give you a quick idea if you have a cyl that isn't getting enough air. This needs to be done with a warm engine though so the lifters are still fully pumped up with oil. Its important to realize that a worn cam lobe is not the only way to cause an excessively rich outlier cylinder. You could also have a leaky lifter that's not fully pumping up with oil or a bent push rod from a sticky valve or even dry valve lash clearance out of tolerance. An even less invasive method that I've had some clients us is to compare valve lift is with a borescope, a little more subjective; but it should tell you if you need to look any closer. Yes, you should have measured your gami spread before ordering them, since few io-360's need them, but that's not to say gami's can't improve your mixture and few io-360's really do need them - just not many. You're getting good advice above.

@exM20K nailed it and there should be a picture of the filler neck showing this in your POH as @carusoam points out. But since yours is a 2005, i believe yours would have to have been a modification (My recollection is that is earlier than when this mod was done at manufacture) and therefore there should be a AFMS supplement added to your POH - which is required to be legal (at least here in the US). If you're missing this documentation you should be able to find it on the Mooney.com website under technical support. If you need it, print it out and add it to your POH. If you don't have the holes in the filler neck described above, then you are not legal for 102 gal capacity till you get the modification. I only say that because some people hearing the tank will hold that amount figure they can get the gas in without getting the mod to make it legal.

If you have GPS integrated with your analyzer, then your analyzer is recording your flight path. If you load up your data to Savvy, we provide a link to see your flight path on a map background. But the map isn't a time series on position - maybe in the future.

Think you got the help on codes you requested but understand that is not going to solve the issue you raise. Even without filing /G on a domestic flight plan they'll assume you are GPS equipped even when not because so few of the aircraft they work with aren't GPS equipped these days. You just need to be proactive about what you need. That is, as soon as your talking to approach near enough to your destination, tell them you have the Atis and are requesting what ever (ground based) approach you want or the visual. I always do that and have the approach loaded and briefed before I leave the enroute structure on vectors - and I almost always get what I request. But with very few surprises that way. Of course it helps to have familiarity with the airspace as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

After listening to the tape I couldn't believe the pilot had a current flight review and wondered if he has a medical and if the airplane had even yet been annual'd or if he had a ferry permit. I searched the airman's database. I couldn't find any Larry Nelson in CO in the database that would be a potential match (assuming he really was a CFI at one time); and I also tried Lawrence and Laurence. I then tried Larry Nelson's throughout the country and none of the 22 hits looked like a good match to this gentlemen's credentials sited by his daughter and none of the possible ones had a active medical - but if he just got one that wouldn't show up this soon anyway. I reviewed Beechtalk's thread on this too, (I saw at least one of you here also contributed to that thread), and another very interesting witness account was revealed. It was pasted in as a graphic and was relayed second hand by a co-worker. But it says the co-worker stopped by the plane and pilot on ramp because the cowling was open and he had a broken dzus fastener and another one messed up so bad that it wouldn't hold either. So the pilot asked this guy if he had any tape to secure it, and the guy said he then noticed "several other fasteners were being held shut by blue painters tape". It doesn't relay any discussion about actually trying to fix these discrepancies but goes on to say the co-worker apparently called the tower to see if the tower had authority to call this plane back to the ramp. Given the witness account, it appears very unlikely he even had a Ferry permit; let alone an annual. I doubt an A&P would risk their cert by signing off an airplane with broken fasteners not holding that would be pretty easy to fix before flying to CO. Another item I noticed on the audio tape, assuming the audio tape wasn't shortened, there clearly wasn't time for a rusty pilot to do a meaningful run-up after he arrived at the runway area and before he took off. He starts taxing at 24:00 when the controller tells him right on Alpha and at 24:30 he's on Alpha when the controller tells him next left to Alpha One and then 45 sec later at 25:15 he is calling tower for departure and the ensuing discussion on deployed speed brakes begins. Did he do a runup on the FBO ramp after startup or did he really depart without one? We don't know, only that there was very little time between arriving at the runway and departing. If the pilot was having a medical event that was going on pretty much the entire time wouldn't that it make it very unlikely he'd be able to get as far as he did to KSAF? Not conclusively, but sure seems unlikely. If he did have a ferry permit, he would have been limited to day VFR only, yet it was dark at his arrival to SAF and apparently not talking to tower when he went down a mile from the airport. I'll leave out my thoughts about 3 of the 5 hazardous attitudes for now in case this really was a medical issue. But it was so sad to hear this plane depart with an obviously very rusty pilot that shouldn't have been flying alone; especially on x-country flight in the mountains in a plane with questionable airworthiness concerns and at night. I can't help but wonder why his daughter didn't intervene.There was also reference to him following her on a x-country solo flight years ago implying she was also a pilot; at least years ago. Regardless though, I really believe there are take away's for us all by trying to understand these disasters and what we might do to avoid these. We're all getting older! One I've learned about from discussing some similar ones is the need for us aging pilots to appoint someone else we trust that's knowledgeable about our flying skills that can tell us when its time to start hanging it up or to really increase our level of currency training and increase our personal minimums. We really need to be able to trust objective criticism about our decreasing abilities when the time comes.

I don't understand your point, none of those TRACONS are as large or as busy as the SOCAL TRACON that @ilovecornfields was giving the example case for using FF. Based on FY16 data, SOCAL is the busiest and largest in the world with over 2 1/4 million operations over 18,000 sq mi of airspace, New York is #2, and then NORCAL is #3 and nothing else tops 1.5 mill operations. POTOMAC is #4, Philadelphia-Consolidated is a distant #10. In my busy SOCAL airspace, as a Lead FAASTeam rep we are doing everything we can to get GA private pilots to use FF when VFR. In order for us to be able to share the complex airspace with the rest of users we really need to help ATC do their job in separating traffic by participating in the system. We are constantly in danger in loosing more of our airspace to Class B or C largely because of the pilots who refuse to participate making it much harder for the rest of us. Especially the latest fastest growing segment of pilots that think because they have Ads/B In that they can be their own controller! Others have made the case for benefits of FF, but I am making the case that if we all work together and participate by talking to ATC they have far less reason to take away more of our airspace. Some examples of how non-participating aircraft create a pain for the the system are: We get GA pilots flying right up to the boundary of class B not intending to penetrate it but since they're not talking to ATC, the controllers have no idea what their intentions are. So when a controller sees a plane squawking 1200 headed for an IFR commuter or airline he's not going to wait to see what you do but start moving the airliner, since Class B airspace deviations are common. And if conditions are right between the two planes, like a climbing GA plane and a descending airliners (vice versa) our actions can cause a TCAS RA and the detecting traffic has to take immediate action increasing everyone else's workload because someone thinks its their right to fly around on the edge of busy airspace without talking too anyone. These actions will just cause us to continue to loose more airspace. For example, for the past decade we've been fighting to keep Long Beach airspace (under the Bravo) from going Class C, but it appears we may be losing the battle and pretty soon. Other problems are that unless your mode C altitude has been verified by talking to you, they can't trust it and have to give you a larger bubble of airspace. I am sure all participants have heard the the controller call out a target and say "altitude unverified". I implore anyone that feels they don't need to participate to take a tour of their local TRACON, they are generally available. My TRACON does one every month and I schedule tours for all my students. I am confident that once more knowledgeable from attending such a tour all will make the right decision to use FF. Even going out to the practice area to do maneuvers. Also we're very fortunate to have a Controller responsible for doing outreach with a suitable budget and time to give presentations to our pilots throughout the TRACON. Its truly a 2 way street and we've given him an education from our perspective that controllers have to be there for us, so recognizing it can be tough sale for some pilots that don't want to talk, he listens to pilot concerns about being dropped etc and takes those back to his colleagues and its made a positive impact on our services here as well. We have for the most part only a couple sectors that can get so overwhelmed that they really do don't have time to give VFR FF. But even when that's happening the better ones keep you N number and say they'll call you back in 10 minutes (its almost always just a few minutes later) or some will ask you to call them back in 10 minutes.

I certainly agree with you there that any increase in air or fuel causes this positive feedback loop to reinforce it. But make sure it isn't being triggered by some misfire for the reasons I mentioned. I see it a lot and deeper you go LOP, the more sensitive you are to this since power is beginning to drop off quickly. If I recall correctly, you're a client of ours so don't hesitate to send create to send an analysis request and I'd be happy to help you look at it. But include it with some Savvy test profile data so we can check both mixture and ignition. What your describing seems a bit severe for changes I would consider are pretty normal for a manual wastegate. Anyway don't hesitate to send in some data. There was some changes to the latest fuel pump configuration if you got your part no on it updated as well to the latest configuration. They added a galley that now allows fuel to pass through at ICO, unlike prior configurations, affecting the previous recommend method of circulating hot fuel with the pump at ICO for hot starts - now you have to be careful not to flood the engine using that technique. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Technically bootstrapping is when the turbo can no longer maintain the target Upper Deck Pressure at the current altitude and current RPM and MAP fluctuations begin to occur. It's easy to confirm by increasing RPM by another 100 rpm and the bootstrapping will cease till climbing higher. Even without looking at his data, I am pretty sure what is causing [mention=15449]ziggysanchez[/mention] issue is running too deaply LOP for either the ignition system or mixture distribution. This typically leads to some misfire in the leaner cyl, which raises EGT and TIT and sets off a positive Feedback loop with the turbo spinning faster from the hotter exhaust, raising MAP and increasing FF as a result which reinforces higher MAP till the pilot fixed it. But yes, without a real controller, the pilot will need to fix it with adjustments to the controls. Diagnostic data would be required to tell if mixture distribution or the ignition system is driving it. But it could also be that the engine is being operated deeper LOP than necessary for the % power. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cool - you obviously have some experience with them this then. But quite as bit of cool new features that really add new capabilities starting with the much improved graphics I know you are familiar. But also new leg capabilities like the heading leg so common on missed approach segments and departures and RF leg segments that open up new approaches (something that the Avidyne boxes can't fly) and the VNAV capabilities are amazing when you consider it's integrated into your autopilot! Voice commands are slick too, but the FS510 which transfers all DB updates seemlessly is also really cool. IMO it's a very big step forward. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sounds like you haven't flown behind one of the GTN's or Avidyne's yet? Frankly, Aspen's make me yawn, like a pair of G5's with double selectable inputs for 2 navcoms/gps's with very little AP integration - but with all due respect to those that fly with one.

They were never $250, I was a early adopter while the STC was still pending. I recall more like $400 each which is a great price considering airparts of lockhaven charges something around $350-$395 to overhaul them. So I think your $1740 price suggest a $35 markup as best as I can tell.

I am not sure I understand why there is an issue since you have to manually keep from overboosting with less throttle. Its should not be all the way forward but whatever it takes to make 37". Gently keep advancing till you have near 37" without overboosting. If you are trying to do that, I suspect you are advancing it too quickly. Also make sure oil temp is over 100F and cyl CHTs are 250F or higher before going to full power. Edit - BTW from your description when you say MAP went over redline I assume you are saying MAP went over 40" which is what is causing your excessive FF. How high did MAP and FF go? Did you look at your downloaded engine data yet? Although your max FF may simply need adjustment, it sounds more like engine is just overboosting from too much throttle - but I may not be understanding your description correctly.

These kind of CHT indications are not that uncommon and are typically due to baffling. CHT3 is the main cyl with larger fluctuations. Initially CHT3 starts to fluctuate after both the plane has leveled off and ground speed has come up to cruise. Then we see fluctuations of 8-10F over about a 1 min period. Over more time in cruise, they get as large as 15F over a slightly faster period of 50 sec. CHTs 1,5, & 6 are all very stable and we see a very normal typical fluctuations in the 2-4F range in cyl #2 & #4 also - which are very typical. We also see a big more fluctuation in CHT5 in climb only, yet it stabilizes in cruise. Whereas CHT3 is pretty stable in climb but fluctuates in cruise. This is typically due to the changing air flow dynamics in the cowling. We also often see these appear right after the cowling has been R&R's with maintenance and then go away when its R&R'd again. So it could be pinched or flexible baffling that got bent the wrong way. But since this is a middle cylinder we also recommend checking the inter-cylinder baffling to make sure that's secure and not moving around. But more likely its the silicone flexible baffling and could also be a sign of its wear. Incidentally, we would not pronounce a poor electrical connection or interference from noisy ignition wires or high current without a much faster period and typically a poor connection or chaffed wires results in much larger fluctuations. But it never hurts to check the security of the connection and wiring when the cowling is off.

I think you mean Breakdown Assistance rather than Maintenance. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mechanics don't do the test as part of the install. You have to fly the savvy profile to measure it. Your EDM also has to have the fuel flow option to measure it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would advise not to run out to clean them. First measure your gami spread via the Savvy Test profile after making sure you have a 1-2 sec data capture rate to get good data. Then see what your gami spread is, only if its degraded or 0.5 or higher would cleaning be warranted. You may be surprised to realize this but the injector environment needs to be so clean that maintenance practice of cleaning injectors often does more harm by introducing debris and nicks of injector o-rings than it does good cleaning them. Which is why we recommend only cleaning them on condition i.e. when the spread degrades. absolutely, for exactly the reason that @Andy95W refers to above. Virtually any pilot that has been running LOP long enough will see their gami spread degrade over time as the injectors get dirty. Maybe sometimes its just varnish buildup, but its real and from the data I see its much more common in turbo's than NA aircraft. In turbo's our injectors are also being pressurized with Upper Deck Pressure air which is another source of debris or dirt that can get in and clog the injector. Very small clogs are not going to create a rough running engine ROP but by making it peak too early it will prevent it from running LOP smoothly since the lean outlier will be flaming out while your richest is trying to get LOP. But cleaning the injectors is the first step to restoring good mixture distribution when it has degraded over time. Nevertheless, its never a good idea to adopt a cleaning schedule based on time in service, like the example A36 pilot above, because cleaning them is one of the most common causes of a partially blocked injector. They should only be cleaned when necessary.