kortopates

If you have a EDM monitor Chris [mention=9886]Marauder[/mention] and [mention=15119]Skates97[/mention] are spot on. EI is different. But I can’t see your video either and suggest always including in your description what kind of analyzer and if this is a new install with issues or just started having issue. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Couple additional points, you can set the ESI-500 course independently from what your primary Nav might be set too. I.e. set G500 on Crs 180 and set ESI to something different. This includes Vor and GPS. But for GPS you of course have to be in OBS mode before your can change GPS crs. Also the ESI in Vor mode defaults to the direct course so that you don’t have to find it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your lock is worn out and needs replacing. It’s only going to get worse with time. The worn mechanism is rotating in flight from vibration. You can replace with same cheap Chicago cabinet locks or go with better Medco locks - discussed here in other threads. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe the vacuum based AI is far less reliable than the engine. Plus we've seen all kinds of pilots demonstrate how lethal loosing their AI, either because of a AI failure or a vacuum failure. Its doesn't take low IMC conditions either. It'll be just two years in May since a Bonanza pilot over stressed his airframe leading to an aluminium shower and 3 fatals over NY. The aircraft had descended barely the first thousand or so feet from ~7K before it broke up. Even with the less likely engine out scenario, gliding down to VMC conditions could lead to a decent chance of surviving off field landing. We saw one here successfully on Mooneyspace not long ago - not from IMC but from a pretty low VFR altitude descending for landing at night time no less. Regardless, although our engines are pretty reliable overall, we can't do much about engine redundancy flying singles. But these days the backup options for AI and vacuum failures are plentiful and affordable that it makes very little sense not to have one; especially given the fatal loss of control accident record from their loss.

You're doing much better than many with your FF The carb temp suggestion is meant in cruise to help if you were trying to run near peak or even LOP. It works for some folks, but the I think cracking the throttle works more commonly.

With regard to temps, I'll offer a little of what our Savvy data has shown me since I see quite a bit Mooney data. Their are lots of exceptions for what I'll offer but generally speaking the carbureted Mooney's tend to run with higher CHTs on the left side; especially in climb. This is not due entirely to airflow but a combination of airflow and mixture distribution. Mixture distribution is pretty abysmal in these engines at full power in that the rear cylinders are not getting their fair share of fuel compared to the front. if you're also unfortunate enough to have a lower than average max FF (~16.5 GPH) then you'll likely have some hot CHTs in climb at no fault of your own. Those with higher FF have it much easier in climb. But I have yet to see one where mixture distribution doesn't evens out very nicely once power is reduced to cruise power levels and then temps run very nicely as long as baffling seals are in good shape. Some of you will discover some of tricks to improving mixture with ever so slightly a change in throttle to alter the turbulence but without significantly reducing MAP (unless you are intending to reduce power). This technique helps in cruise as well to improve mixture distribution, as does partial carb heat, but the latter is best done with a carb temp probe so that you can target a specific temperature. Those of you that are Savvy clients can also run our Report card on your plane and see how many of your performance parameters compare to the rest of your Mooney cohort. This includes parameters like highest inflight and cruise CHT, max FF, percent cruise power and many more. Its doesn't give actual cruise FF that stated this thread, but it does give cruise % power as well as other related parameters. The only drawback to these reports is that we didn't have enough A/B/C/D/E/G's to separate the carbureted O-360's from your E's IO-360's and they are all in the same cohort (F's are grouped with the J's). But as more of you folks add engine analyzers and upload data this will improve over time. Here is a link to more info on Savvy report cards if interested: https://www.savvyaviation.com/ufaqs/report-card-and-trend-analysis/

I hope it happens soon too, especially since Ni is only available with overhauled cylinders for the TSIO-360's; which are at least rebuilt to new tolerances. But J&J in Texas is the only source I know of for Ni TSIO-360 cylinders since nether ECI or Continental make them new yet. They do a huge business but often you have to wait for these cylinders since they're not as common as many others like the IO-550's.

I don't have any data to offer, but I've always thought it was more likely the other way around. Reason being is two fold IMO. In the pattern, distractions are common place from other landing traffic just as Tom explained above in this incident and secondly the pilot that manages their power/energy efficiently is never going to get all that fast in the pattern since they'll pull power back before they accelerate once at TPA and therefore all the above talk about needing the gear to slow down doesn't even apply. Do this over and over again with some added stress and the chances of error seem to increase. On the straight in, its generally your first landing in some time, the checks are going through your mind for probably the last 5 miles in and you really are slowing down while descending and have significantly more time to notice something isn't right - if you aren't distracted by something else, At least those are my observations from spending too much time in the pattern with students.

The GAD43e includes alt pre-select with VNAV with those AP’s that will support it like the KFC150. No extra enablement. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CMI recommends checking it at annual and it’s in the Mooney annual checklist but no adjustment needed as long as it stays in spec. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Annunciations and inputs are two different things. Annunciations just allow it show what you have it connected too. Using a separate switch you’ll use the unnumbered annunciations just as I do. If you hardwired it to the #1, you’d use 1. That’s all it is - and same as my ESI-500. It isn’t until you get into real glass PFD’s that you get multiple Nav sources e.g. G500 & Aspen. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I really doubt it. But check the install or pilots guide to find out. Regardless though that’s isn’t a real problem since a separate switch can be added to toggle between the two Nav sources. This is how I have my backup LSI-500 installed with both a GTN 750 and 650 since it only takes one Nav source by itself. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All true, but they do fail and I see that’s what@jackn and I tried to suggest back in post 5& 8. Symptoms really point to it and it’s easy enough to test. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the their install manual, it also clearly says: "Do not install an Experimental EDM-350 in a certified aircraft."

Only locally do I monitor everything. But the problem isn't limited to Mooney's. At the 10 day FAA report I only monitor Mooney's and that's purely to help me as a Mooney specific instructor as well as a pilot. The FAA has certainly studied this issue at depth and although there is the occasional time a pilot simplify "forgot" without extenuating circumstances that is far from the norm. The fact is the majority of times the pilot was working real hard to ensure a safe outcome to a landing but had unusual stress factors (e.g., traffic, short approach, asked to keep speed up etc) not from the pilots choosing but stresses that altered the pilots routine and distracted the pilot from doing what they typically do 99.999% of the time and on that day their backup checks failed to catch that issue resulting in a gear up landing. Consequently, my take away is we need 3 things, we need to fly regularly (maintain proficiency) 2) we a need pattern for when and how the gear goes down (at FAF IFR, or entering the downwind VFR etc and waiting to see the gear green light actually come on, not just move the switch and move on) and 3) we need multiple backup checks, such as at least 3 GUMPS including the one at short final to check the floor indicator (which is primary) to verify for at least second time the gear is really down just before landing. So for example on the point of seeing the gear come down, when I see a client move the gear up switch on takeoff and not verify the gear actually came up, I'll pull the gear actuator CB on a subsequent takeoff and when they fail to notice the gear didn't come up in the climb we'll have something to talk about. But I've found it not believable to them that they'll miss it If I just to call it out. Doing it on takeoff has made the point well enough and I really don't want to do it on landing and risk turning it into one of the those training induced incidents. But in the end we're still human and subject to erring so a good voice annunciator could really save the day when your normal backups could otherwise fail us. Its great insurance to reduce the odds which are always present no matter how good you are!

I follow the 10 day rolling FAA accident and incident reports published by the FAA at https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:93:::NO::: The NTSB doesn't track these because most are not accidents but incidents whereas the FAA does providing it gets reported, which is a certainty at a towered field but not always at an untowered field. The report hasn't been updated for this morning last I looked, But we know we'll see at least one new one over the weekend, but its rare to not see a Mooney GU all week but not that uncommon to see multiples. Watch it for awhile and you'll see for your self. Mooney GU insurance payouts generally run over $40K with the owner paying some portion for betterment value of prop or blade replacement and additional cost for engine overhaul parts if they so decide since insurance is already paying for a big portion of it. Given the expensive cost, there is a cutoff somewhere around $75K insured hull value where the insurance company will total the plane rather than repair it since they get back about 1/3 of the blue book value of an aircraft in salvage value after paying out the insured hull value.

I think you may be misinterpreting. The earlier comment about the factory engines getting an increased 200 hrs on TBO doesn't require 40 or more hours per month, it just requires a new serial number of above 1006000. That is all or most of the new factory engines are coming with 200 hrs more on TBO as denoted in the second column of the SIL. But what you point out is another independent means to quality for an additional 200 hrs increase on top of the published TBO's, which as you say won't apply to typical aircraft owners.

Honestly we don't even look at or consider actual or absolute values of peak EGT and we only give some attention to the size of the spread. We see spread sizes all over the map, and it varies widely on the same engine based on MAP or throttle setting because this can effect mixture distribution as well. But usually injected engines have a pretty tight spread at cruise power. But if we see a change in spread size then its time to investigate.

Awesome! It’s the hardest rating to get and the most perishable skill. Keep your skills up with lots of IFR flights. What kind of avionics did you do it with? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An instantaneous drop to ambient air pressure suggest a huge induction leak. The fact that it comes and goes points to the overboost valve popping open prematurely. Check that since it can cause your symptoms. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No doubt, I am sure I’ve been one of them to some too. But sometimes things like 91.175 may require some discussion. In fairness, the gear should have been down by the FAF, and I try to ask what’s wrong if it’s not well before getting to short final and minimums. It’s a tough call because we all want to learn from our mistakes but our #1 responsibility as a CFI is provide a safe environment for learning and I look at a pilot deviation in the same way. I’ll be in more trouble than my client. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its often multiple per week, to both electric gear and the seemingly invincible J bar Mooney's in about equal numbers. In fairness, in saying more than weekly, I am including all belly landing whether its a know gear up or a claimed gear failure because its human nature for some pilots to initially report their incident as a gear failure fearing insurance retribution or the like; making it impossible to know with certainty. Before today's (and their could be more than we don't know about this weekend yet) the most recent reported Mooney gear up was a C model on Feb 26 in TX.

If you're going to consider one of these very helpful devices, be sure to check out the P2 Audio Advisory System http://www.p2inc.com/audioadvisory.asp I've always considered it the best unit available for the purpose. .

Tech logs and Journey logs? I am a bit confused because I thought I understood a bit about the journey log. I have a Canadian IFR student with a canadian registered J model and I help him fill out the journey log after each of our flights. Since he appears to keep all his maintenance stickers in his Journey log, I assumed his journey logbook replaced the purpose of our aircraft log book since it has both the maintenance records plus log entries for each flight - like journeys of the airframe. But Canadian aircraft also keep tech logs? Or maybe this is for tech's to log all their maintenance activities? Just curious since you folks apparently do a lot of logging! I keep the equivalent on a journey log in an excel spreadsheet where I track each flight, each maintenance activity and due dates for scheduled maintenance by hours or time. But of course entirely unofficial.

Yeah, I can't say what year Mooney dropped the shuttle valves but only the vintage birds used them and thus doesn't apply to J's and later. All the modern ones plumbed the MC's in series which keeps it simple IMO. Still a bitch to bleed though if air gets trapped between the MC's