kortopates

Ross, virtually the whole industry agrees Continentals are set up too lean at takeoff because of Continentals spec is on the lean side. Its a very accepted practice of adding a 0.5 to 1.0 GPH above Continentals high number when doing the set up. I can't say why Continental is a bit lean, but I've always assumed it was because they wanted to certify their engines with a much rated HP as they could. Just like OEMs recommendations to run at ROP best power, which is right in the red box at 75-80F ROP, it seems they set up their max FF to provide every bit of HP they could get out of the the engine rather than be concerned with longevity. But practicality really reigns here, if we're talking about a fire breathing 310 HP STC on the S/R or TN's these engines are already producing plenty enough power that they can be operated even extra rich to run a bit cooler - so what if they loose a few HP when they are already putting out over 300. But one wouldn't want to go to overboard on say a K with a 210 or 220 HP since going overly rich will rob the engine of power and the airframe is going too need virtually every pony. Of course when we're talking about max FF at takeoff, this discussion is limited to Continentals since Lyc are not field adjustable. i assume when you talk about overly rich you might be switching to Idle mixture? Its pretty rare to see an engine suffering from being overly rich at takeoff compared to overly lean. But we do see a few (more often in turbo's). Most shops and mechanics are rightfully paranoid about setting FF to far above TCM's spec. But its a universal issue in both Lyc's and Continentals to see an overly rich idle mixture. My theory is an engine will have a difficult time idling smoothly because of an induction leak and rather than fix the root issue, someone increases the mixture to make up for it.

Yes, the engines have a maximum continuous TIT of 1650F and 1700F for one minute. But they also have a max HP TIT limit of 1450F (i.e. takeoff) to ensure not taking off with an overly lean mixture. This isn't always spelled out in the Limitation section - it is on the Rocket, but its typically always referenced in the procedure either in the normal takeoff or emergency procedures. Taking off with a TIT of 1550F is what leads to a power loss in climb shortly thereafter. I tend to see at least one every month. The ones I do see though are the ones to get back down safely. Turbo Transition training needs to include monitoring TIT (or FF). Some prefer to monitor FF, but vapor lock can result in an erratic FF and not clearly show its inadequate but TIT will show right away if the engine isn't getting adequate fuel. And frankly I consider you more of an expert than most; understandably more of Lyc guy than continental guy.

Very few CFI's know how to manage high performance engines let alone turbo's - but that's not necessarily the issue with this accident. But if a CFI follows an older POH on how to run the engine as gospel that is a problem given how much more we know today about engine operation. (I find the modern POH's are much improved with their guidance)

Agreed, RAM's current spec is 36 GPH

there is no way, that what is described above as being within spec. Its an emergency if TIT at full power climb exceeds 1450F! A max TIT of 1450F at full power rich is a limitation on the Rocket and all the Continental Turbo. A TIT of 1500F is way to lean. The procedures (emergency or normal) call for turning on the high boost pump should TIT exceed 1450F on takeoff (different POH's place this in different places and a lot of pilots miss it). If its at 38 GPH already when the Rocket TSIO-520-NB should need 33-35 GPH but 38 GPH is resulting in 1500F TIT I would suspect the FF transducer K factor must be off and perhaps the mechanic should be adjusting the upper end by the max metered fuel pressure instead of FF GPH. Since I am overly anal about my planes setting, I am done till I see the settings I want in a trip around the pattern since I find just doing on ground only gets you close compared to what you'll see after you leave the runway in climb. WRT "So it seems that raising the max fuel flow also raises the idle fuel flow and makes the factory procedure invalid." absolutely right, but I wouldn't say invalid, just that one of the settings is adjusted its imperative to check the others and re-tweak till both ends are in spec. If one can't get both fuel pressures to spec, it typically means the fuel pumps needs to be sent out for repair. WRT to the idle mixture, I am not sure what he adjusted 1/2 turn, but he can't adjust idle mixture merely by turning a screw and giving it back. There are two Idle adjustments, the fuel pumps unmetered fuel pressure idle setting on the fuel pump done at 700 rpm - which I hope is not what he adjusted. And a separate Idle mixture adjustment screw on the servo. But the overly rich IDLE mixture, which is independent of unmetered fuel should be tested the the same way you do it on your Lyc, by idling at 1000 rpm full rich for a minute and and then reduce to min idle of 700-725 RPM and then slowly lean till the engine dies observing the rpm rise. But rather than the 10-40 rpm rise you look for for on your Lyc RSA5 we want to see a tad higher of about 20-50 rpm rise. A very overly rich one could be 100+ rpm rise but very easy to check.

And now for the full story, the NTSB final report is out. Kathryn's website includes some picture and report here http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2018/08/mooney-m20tn-acclaim-n9306-accident.html Excerpts in the report: The pilot reported that during landing, the airplane bounced and that he added engine power to abort the landing but the engine lost all power. He stated that the propeller was still windmilling and he thought the power loss was due to the high altitude and full rich mixture used on approach. He leaned the fuel mixture thinking that the engine would restart but when it didn't, he applied brakes and attempted to stop on the remaining runway. The airplane overran the end of the runway and was damaged. The pilot had recently purchased and received flight training in the accident airplane during the previous 2 days. He said that he knew he would be operating the airplane from high altitude airports, including GNB (elevation 8,207 ft), and questioned his flight instructor regarding leaning procedures during approach at high altitude airports. He said that the flight instructor told him to adhere to the procedures in the Pilot's Operating Handbook, which instruct pilots to apply full rich mixture on final approach. The pilot reported that he did so on the accident landing approach, but in retrospect believed that the full rich mixture may have created a situation where the engine was not able to respond to throttle input with the combined high density altitude (8,441 ft), and full rich mixture. A representative of the airplane manufacturer was queried about the possibility of the engine not responding to throttle input, or the spark plugs fouling, during high altitude approaches due to full rich mixture. The manufacturer did not believe this was possible if the fuel control adjustments were properly set up. --------------------------------------- We've talked about mixture on final many times here with a number of people saying they need to avoid going full rich mixture because of the very thing this pilot confronted. That is fine for those of you experienced enough and well practiced to go rich on the go. But I've also tried to make the point in a few of these discussions that if one really needs to do this that this means the fuel system is not set up properly with respect to the idle mixture adjustment and should be addressed. Although the NTSB didn't get to follow through and verify this, I bet they would have found an overly rich idle mixture is what got this pilot into trouble. It also seems that the majority of new Mooney acquisitions need to have their fuel setup gone through immediately after purchase. Prior owners where overly compensating for an out of spec fuel set up for some time whether it be aggressively leaning at idle for an overly rich mixture or avoiding full power climb with insufficient max fuel FF.

My last lab did just great at the upper teens without O2 for flights that where over an hour at altitude but less than 2 hrs. I think first officer Bailey logged over a thousand hours flying with us and lived to 13 y.o. He didn't really sleep on our flights, but would sit up in climb and especially as soon as we began a descent he would sit up to look at where we where. But in cruise his favorite pass time was putting his head on the arm rest between the front seats to get his nose up next to us. The highest I would take him was 17.5 for short duration but mostly 15.5 to 16.5K where he seemed to do just fine. Then after arriving at our mountain destination, after having come from sea level he sure didn't act tired. He would run around at 9.5K fetching sticks and swimming in a mountain lakes as I huffed and puffed carrying a heavy pack of gear. Before our first flight we visited the vet and the only thing I remember about that now is that he provided a sedative for his first flights in case he was anxious. But he never needed it, he was just thrilled to go with us. Years later they had O2 for dogs, but by then I saw no point - at least for in the teens. YMMV.

Maybe, but the pilots low and slow pattern shows us its a good candidate for a Vmc roll over too

Statements like the above help support my fundamental belief that the #1 issue is education. In no way is this meant to question @Nels, but nels brings up a very common misunderstanding among the pilot community that airspeed is responsible for stalls even though I am sure all have learned its AOA. Yet unfortunately for too many that is just a poorly understood concept. So its my belief that too many pilots become fixated to degree on the accelerated 1G stall speed and its relationship to bank angle. That would be great if their understanding allowed for AOA, weight, cg. But without that it leads to unnecessarily (IMO) restricting bank angle to shallower standard rate turns in the pattern and excessively long downwinds rather than flying the standard FAA traffic pattern from 0.5 to no more than 1 mile abeam the runway. We all see it. Its then these long patterns which lead to the the pilot getting low and then slow when they start pulling back on yoke without adding rudder and power to compensate for the increased AOA. In other words, the larger pattern the pilot is consciously choosing to fly to avoid the stall/spin is actually setting the stage for the very event. But in contrast, if the pilot's pattern was the well practiced tighter but normal pattern with a continuous descent that kept the wing unloaded from abeam the numbers to the point of landing as supposedly taught in primary training their would be no reason to pull back on the yoke and thus very little concern for a stall/spin accident.

Now you just need to decide if you are up for flying on O2 to take advantage of the turbo or typically stay below 13K. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just glad you got it in time on the ground before it came off in flight!! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am sure they would have repaired it. But you saved yourself some time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

None of the factory Mooney's have a altitude compensating fuel pump. Even though many of the IO-550 variants do have this feature, such the later Bonanza A36, the -G model used by Mooney does not. Its too bad because its a nice feature to have since it simplifies mixture management once set due to altitude changes like descents. So because the Mooney lacks it, we do need to enrich on descents from the increase in MAP or pulling MAP back. (Turbo fuel pumps use the same baro chamber but its referenced to upper deck pressure and not ambient pressure).

You're lucky, perhaps yours has the TCM position tuned injectors installs. The majority need some form of tuned injectors to get within 0.5.

As @Clarence said above for the OP, this is a clear sign that the idle adjustments are off - but once anything is changed you have to go through both idle and max power according to TCM specs now published in M-0. But one or a combination of the 3 idle settings are off: idle mixture, idle rpm or unmetered fuel pressure. Idle mixture is very common and one you can check on your own. After running full rich at 1000 rpm bring it back to min idle rpm around 700, then slowly lean mixture till it dies. You should see a RPM rise of 20-50 rpm before it does - any more its overly rich, any less its overly lean.

You're getting great advice from John @jlunseth and others here. You mention you have a EDM 830 without FF, but then below you say the sweet spot for you was 13.3 GPH - so I'll assume you a have an independent FF such as the popular Shadin. If so, you don't need a separate FF transducer for the JPI, you just need to get the existing FF transducer wired up to the EDM 830 in parallel with your other FF display unit. Most likely its compatible (the shadin is) and just needs to be wired up so that you'll have downloadable FF data with the rest of your EDM 830 data. FF data is critical to engine diagnosis as well as running LOP. In fact I wouldn't recommend experimenting with LOP ops till you have the FF on your EDM and measure your gami spread to be within satisfactory results (within 0.5 GPH). Also, once you're ready to start downloading data from your EDM be sure to first re-set the data sampling rate from 6 sec default to its fastest 2 sec rate for the 830. The default 6 sec rate won't provide enough data resolution. Regarding power settings, they don't need to be that complicated. Starting with the intercooler STC guidance, just pick the altitude range you want to optimize and calculate the 75%, 65% and 55% sum or MAP inches and rpm/100 to get whole numbers. For example, for my 252/Encore I use 53, 50, and 47 for 75%, 65% and 55% ROP power settings respectively. With these number we can use any reasonable combination of MAP and RPM/100 that totals the number. For your intercooled LB the numbers are going to be a bit higher such as 55, 52, and 48 or in that ballpark. Its really not necessary to follow the POH tables that precisely, but its your choice as PIC. Enjoy your new 231.

You are probably getting interference affecting your GPS signal from something. You can test for this on the ground by parking the aircraft on the ramp where it has an obstructed view of the sky and bring up the satellite page on your GNS430W - last nav page. Then turn on your portable device and see if it degrade the green bars on the satellite page. If so, you can try placing the portable in places away from the GPS - such as back seat for differences. Mine stays on the backseat and works fine from there.

Slim chance its a probe issue from what you describe. But as mentioned above you need to look at the downloaded data and the best data to resolve this is a series of slow gami spreads. Can't get good data with a big pull or even the typical 6 sec data sampling. Be sure to also make sure your engine monitor is sampling at 1-2 sec data rate to ensure the best data resolution. Assuming your #3 is a lean outlier as you expect, the first step is always to clean that injector to see if dirt is making it lean. Then repeat the gami spreads and check to see if that cleared it up. Everybody (fuel injected) experiences a dirty or partially clogged injector eventually; pretty common especially after maintenance.

I am sure your are right. Its just that I'd bet most interested folks would already have tips and would just want to add antenna's. But with some interest I am sure they'd be game.

Looks like you had an obstruction in the injector line that only restricted your FF at high power causing your cyl to go lean above a certain power threshold. Good job resolving it. Given the only way to get some debris into the injector line is through the screen on the fuel divider, I'd want to dissemble the divider to check and clean the screen just in an abundance of caution to avoid seeing it happen again anytime soon. Confused though about no fresh data on Savvy since 2016? Its good load up all your data on Savvy, you could get an automated alert if something is detected.

Most of the new modern engine analyzers, such as JPI and EI, offer fuel pressure sensors. To replace your OEM unit, you just need to go with a TSO'd model. Most of us consider a modern engine analyzer one of the most important safety upgrades if not the most important.

The Antenna's can be ordered from Spruce http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/archer_antenna3.php?clickkey=5349125 For us already with Mooney wing tips its pretty easy. The only challenge is the approval since the only STC is through LASAR whom no longer sells their wing tip kit but was kind enough to allow me to use their STC. But if your A&P/IA is comfortable with it, one could install them as minor mod. The main labor is to carefully remove a dozen or two cherry max rivets from each wing tip to get them off, and to pull coax cable from the cockpit to the wing tips. Installing the actual antenna's isn't more than a couple hours. Re-installing the wing tips is also very quick except for touching up the heads with paint. Of course you'll want to add some time to remove the old tail nav antenna's and cover.

Must have been typing at the same time. I also added the Thermo-Tek barrier - over time without it, it drys out the fiber glass layers requiring periodic repair. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My NAV antennas are buried in the wing tips. Originally I had a pair of Comant antenna's that went into a combiner that then spitted the signal to two radios. These were a pretty expensive and worked great. More recently I had to go to a smaller footprint when I changed out the control weights on my ailerons since the bigger Encore control weights would have interfered with the Comant antennas. After a lot research, I went with the same Bob Archer antenna's that he designed for LASAR to install in the LASAR wing tips and STC'd by LASAR. They only weight ounces and are really inexpensive compared to conventional Comant antenna's and actually work pretty well. My labor was the real cost of the project. You can still get these from Aircraftspruce - but not the wing tips and STC. Of course I was using my original Mooney wing tips but LASAR created their own wing-tip copy of the Mooney one to install on vintage Mooneys which included a buried nav antenna's option. They no longer offer them though.

Robert is absolutely right. Although this particular heat shield is prone to breaking due to where its sits, its improper installation that leads to premature cracking of the bracket. The cracking of the bracket is due to the thermal expansion of both sides of the junction. The maintenance manual provides very specific instructions on not to clamp both sides of the shield down tightly to allow for this. But that's obvious what was done in the picture above that shows how the clamp damaged the crossover pipe. Mine last for years with proper installation. If anything I err on installing too loose and have to periodically tighten one of the clamps when I do an oil change. be sure to read the maintenance manual on installation.